§ (1) The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, cause returns in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require to be obtained from all owners of land, declaring the total value and the site value respectively of their land as estimated in each case by the owners, that value being declared separately as respects each piece of the land which is under separate occupation, and if the owner thinks fit, as respects any part of any land which is under separate occupation, and being estimated as on the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine.
§ (2) Where land comprises minerals a separate return shall be made under this section of the value of the minerals.
§ (3) If any owner of land is required by the Commissioners to make a return under this section, and fails to make such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, specified in the return, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that section shall apply accordingly, but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court.
§ (4) Owners of agricultural land in Ireland may, if they think fit, make, but shall not be required to make, returns under this section.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of order, in connection with Clause 16, and I think it is time to ask it. The original Clause 16 has a marginal note to it which describes it. It is "Returns as to the value of land from owners," and the original Clause 17 is described as "Ascertainment of the original total and the original site value of land." I am well aware that these marginal notes have no authority and are altered by the authorities when they proceed to the printing and publishing, if the contents of a clause are so amended in Committee as to require that alteration. I only refer to the marginal note because it is the shortest way of describing 1142 what were the original contents of this Clause 16. It dealt with returns as to the value of land, and these returns, were to be made by the owner. The initial words of the clause are: "The Commissioners shall … cause returns … to be obtained from all owners of land." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down Amendments, which by common consent, according to the description given of them by the Government themselves, entirely alter the character of the clause. The first words of the clause, as it would run, instead of providing that the Commissioners shall cause returns to be obtained from the owners of land, will say: "The Commissioners shall … cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom." I submit that that is to make so complete a change in the clause as to be in effect the introduction of a new clause, and that that cannot be done by an Amendment of the existing clause. Perhaps you will permit me to say, after taking some trouble to acquaint myself with the precedents, that I am bound to admit that they appear to be very contradictory, and that is one more reason, Sir, for asking a ruling from you on this occasion.
I will not trouble to deal with the whole of the precedents which have come under my notice, but I will give you those which are necessary to show upon what I found my case. In the case of the Tithe Rent Charge (Rates) Bill of 1899, an Amendment was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouth, now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna), and drew a ruling from the Chair. It was the first clause of the Bill, and its object was to exempt tithe rent charge from half of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman moved to substitute for that, by means of two Amendments which had to be read together, a fixed allowance of some £70 from the valuation on which the rates were paid, and the Chairman then made the following ruling:—
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Monmouth must be taken with another Amendment which appears lower down on the Paper, which applies a wholly different class of relief as an alternative to this clause. It would, therefore, be the proper course to move to strike out this clause and embody the proposal in a new clause.I submit that the original Clause 16 had nothing to do with valuation, but only with returns which were to be obtained by the Commissioners from the landowners, and on which the valuation was to be founded. If, however, you, Sir, were against me on that point, I should 1143 still submit that it provided for a wholly different class of valuation, just as the clause on which the Chairman was ruling in the Tithe Rent Charge Bill provided for an entirely different class of relief as an alternative to that in the clause, and it must not be used as an Amendment but as a new clause. An even closer parallel is to be found in the case of the Education Bill of 1906, when a series of proposed Amendments to Clause 1 of that Bill were ruled upon by the Chairman. The first Amendment stood in the name of a Gentleman who, again, is now a Member of the Government—no other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should say that the principle and object of the first clause of that Bill was to establish in every county a committee of the county council as the public education authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at that time enjoying greater freedom and less responsibility, proposed to substitute for the county council the provincial council. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) proposed to establish a universal system of school boards as the public education authority instead of a universal system of county council committees, and Mr. Allen, who was then the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, had also a series of Amendments, the effect of which would have been to establish universal school boards instead of universal county council committees. The Chairman ruled as follows:—The next Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, is really the substitution of a fresh clause for Clause 1, and cannot be raised here. If Clause 1 is negatived, then the hon. Member may bring his clause up as a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. With regard to the series of Amendments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme …I would ask your particular attention, Sir, to these words:—they raise a scheme alternative to that contained in the first clause, and an Amendment which raises an alternative scheme is not properly an Amendment. Therefore the proper course for the hon. Member to take would be if this clause is negatived, to bring forward a new clause.I do not think it will be contended by anyone that the series of Amendments of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice, do not raise a scheme of valuation alternative to the scheme of valuation in the Bill, and I submit that that ruling exactly covers the present case, but even if it does not exactly raise that point, there is a further ruling by the Chairman in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the hon. Member for 1144 Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) upon which I shall rely. While declining to rule upon hypothetical Amendments, which he had not seen, the Chairman said:—In my opinion the Amendments on the Paper before me, and to which I have referred, are of such a character as not to be Amendments to the clause, but suggestions for wholly different machinery. These matters cannot be introduced as Amendments to a clause, because they practically destroy the whole clause by substituting machinery of a totally different character. That can only be done by introducing a new clause.Every word of that ruling applies to the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are suggestions for a wholly different machinery of valuation, and substitute a machinery that destroys the original clause, because it is of a totally different character, and I submit to you, therefore, that if these precedents hold good, these Amendments cannot be proposed to Clause 16, and that the proper course will be for the Committee, if it so desires, to negative Clause 16 and then bring up the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals as a new clause.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEOn the point of order, may I just say a few words? I submit to you, Sir, that this is not a change which is irrelevant to the clause as it appears in the Bill now. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly admits that marginal notes are purely a clerical matter. The House of Commons have nothing to do with them, and they are simply inserted by the draftsmen and may be altered. They have nothing whatever to do with the question. With regard to the clause itself, there were Amendments already on the Paper by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to carry out exactly the operation which we have undertaken to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and evidently they were then under the impression that they were in order, and I submit it would have been in order to discuss those Amendments if the Government adhered to the Clause as it appeared on the Paper. The only difference is this: The Government would invite returns from owners. These returns are voluntary. In substance they were voluntary before, because, if the owner did not choose to make a return the ultimate responsibility for the valuation still rested on the State, and the only difference is this, that we invite them in the first instance to make a return, not merely of particulars which would enable the State to value, but to make returns which gave their own view as to what the 1145 Valuation ought to be. The State proceeded then to check. The State now invites returns of particulars which will enable it to value. It then proceeds to value, and then the owner checks. I submit that there is no fundamental difference such as the right hon. Gentleman has submitted, and that the Amendments which the Government have submitted to this clause are just as much in order as the Amendments which would have been submitted by the Opposition.
The CHAIRMANI am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and I am grateful to him for having given me ample notice of his intention to do so. The real meaning of the clauses as they stand in the Bill is that returns are to be made by the owners, that these returns are to be checked by the Commissioners, and that failing a return by the owner the Commissioners are to have a valuation made for him. That presupposes a machinery for valuation. The real meaning of the clauses as proposed to be altered by the Government is, I think, that the Commissioners are to make a valuation, and the owners are to give certain returns of particulars instead of making the valuation themselves. These differences, I think, are differences rather of degree than of kind, taking the clauses as a whole. Of course that does not entirely settle the very difficult question of whether the actual Amendments proposed on this Clause 16 are in order or not. It is only after very careful consideration, and not without a great deal of hesitation, that I have come to the conclusion that the Amendments should be allowed. I admit that precedents can be quoted, as the right hon. Gentleman has quoted precedents, in which it is possible it can be argued that the Amendments which were refused by the Chair did not go further in the alteration of the clauses in question than the Amendments proposed on this Clause 16. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman has very frankly acknowledged, there are other precedents, where very great variations from the original form of the clause have been allowed, and the determining consideration with me in regard to this matter has been that I certainly should have allowed the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) and the right hon. and learned Member (Sir Edward Carson) if they had come before me, and I should have allowed them because if the Government 1146 were going to stand by the original form of this clause the only way in which this issue, which is one of great importance, could be clearly raised would be by allowing these particular Amendments. Otherwise they could not be allowed, except in the discussion on the question that the clause stand part. After the clause had stood part the question could never be raised again, because the clause itself would stop it. That is the real reason which has made me come to this decision. But I have another reason. At a very early stage of Clause 2 I allowed art Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) to the effect that, "For the purposes of this part of this Clause the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount, if any,"—then comes the Amendment—"as ascertained by Commissioners specially appointed for the purpose." The word "ascertained" clearly involves valuation, and I therefore allowed the Amendment, which went, as regards valuation, as far as this, and as regards other points further than this. Therefore, having done that, I really could not at this stage refuse Amendments like these from the Government.
With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Ashton), that Amendment, taken in conjunction with a later Amendment, which I take to be consequential, raises a question which is in order as an Amendment to this clause—the question of whether devaluation is to be on all agricultural land or only on such agricultural land as is likely to be liable to one of these taxes. I mention this Amendment particularly because other hon. Members raise the same point at a later stage, and the particular way in which it is raised by the hon. Member here and in his consequential Amendment raises the matter in the right way, so if anyone desires to move it it can be moved here, otherwise it can only be raised within these lines at a later stage.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere is a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Clavell Salter) on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Except land exempt from any duty under this part of this Act." It raises rather the same point, and I wanted your ruling whether that would be covered by this, and whether the whole question should be debated on this Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Verney) or whether the other Amendment should be reserved, which covers wider ground.
The CHAIRMANThe reason I mention this Amendment particularly is that his consequential Amendment gives the exact lines on which the thing can be debated. We cannot debate the whole question whether agricultural land is to be exempt from valuation, because we have decided that it is to be subject to the tax. I do not care at all whether it is debated on the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) moves or on the Amendment having a similar purpose which is on the Paper in the name of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil). I merely indicated that it would have to be debated within the proper lines, not as to the whole of agricultural land being exempt from valuation, but as to that part of agricultural land which is unlikely to be taxed.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI quite understand and agree with that limitation, but the other limitation is that there is other land, not agricultural, which is exempt under this Act, and that is where the discussion will require to be widened or less partially reserved.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1), to leave out "returns in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require to be obtained from all owners of land, declaring," in order to insert the words, "a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom showing separately."
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI rise to move to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "all" ["made of all land"], with a view of raising the question, and I think it is a question of enormous importance, whether this valuation shall be applied to all the land throughout the country or whether it is only to be applied to so much of the land as is taxable, with the addition, perhaps, of that portion of the land which must be valued for the purpose of laying the foundation for future taxes. I quite recognise that it is simplest to strike out from the valuation all land which is not going to be immediately taxable—for instance, to strike out all land which is of an agricultural nature, and which is mainly valuable for agricultural purposes now, if it had in addition some other 1148 value, and which would evidently have to be valued for the purpose of arriving at the tax payable in respect of so much of its value as was not attributable to agriculture. In the same way I see a difficulty in striking out all land which belongs to a small owner, because it is evident that it might at some future time become the property of a large owner, and would then no doubt be subject to Increment Duty. But it is clear that some land may safely be left out, and I think a very large tract of land in this country may be left out from the valuation without interfering in any way with the financial efficiency of these clauses, and I submit, with some expectation of acceptance from the Government, that their valuation must be conditioned by the consideration whether in a Finance Bill the valuation is necessary for financial reasons and no others. Unless they can show that the valuation of the whole land is really necessary in order to obtain these taxes some exception to the generality of the clause must be inserted. This clause is rather curiously drafted. It does not seem to me to provide for all the valuations that are necessary, and I do not understand how the Government propose that these valuations can be carried out under the expenses Resolution which we have arrived at. It does not provide for the valuation for the increment occasions except death, which is provided for under the Death Duties, nor that a valuation shall be necessary in the case of reversion. I do not see that either of these is provided for by the machinery of the clause at all, and I do not know how the Government propose to deal with that, but though it does not provide for that it certainly does provide for some valuation which does not seem to me to be necessary at all. I cannot see why we want to value the whole of the agricultural land in this country. Take the mass of the agricultural land of the country. The site value of it will be less than £50 an acre. It will therefore not come under the Undeveloped Land Duty, nor will it come under the tax for Increment Duty. I quite agree that we must have for the purpose of the Increment Duty the standard of the original site value, but there is no reason in the world why under any valuation you should not have a conventional original site value for the great mass of agricultural land in this country. There is no reason why you should not say that it should be taken at £50 per acre as original site value on which shall be built the claim for Increment Duty. There is every reason 1149 why, so far as Undeveloped Land Duty is concerned, a valuation should not take place. So far as small owners are concerned, I do not see myself how you are going to deal with them without a valuation. It is a great blot on the scheme that you have to submit the whole of the small owners to the duty of making the valuations, and it will make the friction greater than the Government has any idea of. I do not myself see what method can be devised to relieve them from the duty of making the valuation. You could not take it as a conventional figure, for the land might become the property of somebody else, in which case the Increment Duty would arise.
As to the other considerable class of exemptions provided for in Clause 25 of the Bill, I do not see why you should have a valuation. I do not see why they should not be free from valuation, and I am fortified in this view by the terms of a new clause of which the Government have given notice. I may be allowed to refer to it as an example of the kind of thing I have in my mind. It frees a statutory company from valuation altogether, and gives them the liberty of allowing their land to be taken at a conventional value. In this case I think the value is to be the amount they paid for it, or something of that kind. It may be necessary to vary that in other cases, but I cite the new clause as an admission of the principle of my Amendment. Here you have in the one case statutory companies who are free from the burden of valuation. I do not know why they are free from it except that they can exercise a considerable amount of electoral force, or it may be that they have been able by their advocates to convince the Government that they have a strong case against valuation. I press upon the Government the principle of my Amendment to leave out the word "all." It is open to the Government to provide any machinery they like in order to carry out the principle after the word "all" is left out. If "all" is included, it may be more difficult to deal with the question on subsequent occasions. This raises the question: Do you want a universal valuation or do you not? I regard this as a crucial Amendment. If the Government have really provided these taxes for the purpose of raising money, it is quite plain that they ought to confine the valuation strictly to the purposes of their taxes. I think they must recognise that the valuation 1150 of all land would be a great burden on those who were subjected to the operation. It would be felt much more by the small man than by the big man, because the big man would be able to get someone to do it for him. It is not right to impose that duty on people in a Finance Bill unless you want it for financial purposes. This is the parting of the ways. If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, then they will have much more to say for themselves when they try to convince the House of Commons that this is a Finance Bill and nothing else. If they insist on a universal valuation, it will be absolutely incredible that this is only a Finance Bill. It will be clear that they want these clauses, not for the purpose of finance in the present year, but for the purpose to which they really wish to apply them, namely, the laying of the foundation for other schemes of legislation in future. I ask the careful attention of the Government to this Amendment. I hope they will not needlessly and provocatively refuse this Amendment, thereby confirming those who hold the view that this is not a real Finance Bill, but a Bill which seeks to attain other than financial objects—to attain certain party purposes and not the purposes of finance.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Noble Lord concluded his observations by introducing, as he is rather in the habit of doing, a good deal of party recrimination. I really think the Committee ought to consider this clause as a purely business proposal. What is the proposal? We have got to consider the question of valuation from the point of view of the taxes we have already passed.
§ Lord R. CECILI said so.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the Noble Lord will admit that. Is a valuation required for the purpose of these taxes in all cases or not? I submit that it is, and that it will be quite impossible for any Government having received instructions from the House of Commons to impose these taxes to face the administration of the difficult duty of collecting them without getting a complete valuation. The Noble Lord admits that in cases of urban sites you must get your valuation. What he suggests in the first instance is that you ought to exempt agricultural land, and that in the second place you ought to exempt the small holder.
§ LORD R. CECILI expressly said that I saw great practical difficulties in exempting the small owner.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEVery well, I leave that out. It is quite impossible to exempt the small holder from valuation, because at some future moment his land might come into the hands of a man who is not a small owner. In the second place the Noble Lord thinks that charitable trusts ought to be exempted. His third point was that we do as a matter of fact exempt statuory companies. It is quite clear that land held by statutory companies forms a very small proportion of the land in this country, and, therefore, it is comparatively speaking a small portion at any rate when you begin to compare it with agricultural land. What do we do in their case? We substitute a new kind of valuation simply because these statutory companies have not complete freedom in their disposition of then land, and, therefore, you are bound to take that into account. For that reason we have substituted a totally different basis as long as the land is in their possession. But they are not exempt from valuation. We simply substitute a different basis of valuation, and I think that is fair. I do not want to discuss that until we come to the new proposal. I am simply dealing with the fact that they are not exempt from valuation. A value in respect of their land will have to be placed on the register, and it will have to be ascertained. There will be original site value, but you ascertain it on different principles, because the land is governed on different principles under Acts passed by this House. I now come to the case of charitable trusts. Charitable trusts are not exempt from valuation. Why does the Noble Lord say that they are?
§ Lord R. CECILI was talking of those which come within Clause 25. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument I addressed to the Committee. I am sure that is entirely my fault, and I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of any discourtesy.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat is the point?
§ Lord R. CECILClause 25 provides for the exemption from the tax of certain charitable trusts.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think I can put the Noble Lord right.
§ Lord R. CECILNo, I do not wish to be put right by an erroneous correction. Clause 25 provides that "No duty under this part of this Act shall be charged in respect of land or any interest in land held by any person or body of persons carrying on any undertaking or institution without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof …" under certain conditions.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGERead on.
§ Lord R. CECILI will read the whole of it, if you like. The rest of the clause is as follows: "For purposes which in the opinion of the Commissioners are public purposes or charitable purposes, while the land is occupied and used by that person or body for those purposes, but nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be occupied or used for the said purposes." Now turn to the Amendment with respect to statutory companies, and you will find precisely the same provision. The second section of the new clause says, "The Commissioners shall not require a statutory company to make any returns with respect to any such land for the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation other than as to the actual cost to the company of the land, and that cost shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be substituted for the original site value of the land." That is the point. If that is good enough for a statutory company, why is it not good enough for a charitable trust?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Noble Lord objected to be put right by an erroneous correction, but he has proceeded to put himself wrong by an incomplete quotation and an absolutely mistaken accentuation of the part he quoted. He has not read the whole of the clause.
§ Lord R. CECILI read every word of it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEHe simply skipped over what is by far the most important part of it. The charitable trusts are not to be charged "while the land is occupied and used by that person or body for those purposes; but nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be occupied or used for the said purposes."
§ Lord R. CECILThere is the same provision in the clause dealing with statutory companies.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEReally the Noble Lord does not know what he is arguing. What has he to prove? He has to prove that a valuation is not necessary, and in order to prove that a valuation is not necessary, he must also prove that under no conditions will Increment Duty be collected on the basis of original site value. What happens in this case? If these charitable trusts sell any part of their land, they are liable for the duty. How are you going to ascertain the Increment Duty unless first of all you get the original site value of that property?
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThese very words occur in this new clause as to statutory companies: "Nothing in this Section shall prevent the collection of Increment Value Duty where any such land is sold or ceases to be so held." There you have not the valuation in the sense which is provided for in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to my original speech, he would have found that I always recognise that you must have an original site value. The question is whether you are to arrive at that without a valuation. In the case of a statutory company it is arrived at without a valuation. I say that principle ought to be applied to all valuations where it is applicable, where the land is exempted from tax.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Noble Lord is putting a totally different point now. He takes three categories of landowners, and he says, "Here is agricultural land; here is the statutory company; here is the charitable trust. You are exempting the statutory company. There are special provisions in regard to valuation. When you come to the charitable trust why should you value it because there is no tax?" That was not the point raised by the Noble Lord. I am in the recollection of the House on this. The point that the Noble Lord did raise was that there is an Increment Tax which must have an original site value before you can estimate it. The Noble Lord has said, "That is not my point. My point is not that there is no tax; my point is that there is a tax, and you ought to ascertain the original site value in the same way as you do with a statutory company." That is a totally different point, but I am quite willing to take it. The Noble Lord says, "Why do you ascertain the site value as regards the statutory company?" In the first place, it is on a totally different basis. The statutory company is a company which buys as 1154 a rule under compulsory purchase, and pays extra; in fact, it pays three times its original value and a good deal more; and it would be unfair to take the real value of the land in the ordinary sense of market value in that case. There is nothing of that kind in a charitable trust. A charitable trust may be hundreds of years old. They may have no value at all. Take the statutory company. There is the value imposed by Act of Parliament—a very different proposition. But I am glad the Noble Lord has taken other ground, because he has seen that there is a case for valuation in the case of the charitable trust. I come now to agricultural land. Every piece of agricultural land to-day may ten years hence be the most valuable building land. Take, if you like, East Ham. Twenty years ago that was agricultural land. There are towns in England which were not on the map 100 years ago; and you constantly find land, which is purely agricultural at one period, every few years completely changed. Take the land along the Great Central Railway. Until the Great Central line ran there it was purely agricultural land, which was very largely a drug in the market; but now it has grown in value to £200, £300, £500, and £l,000 an acre, and I have been given one case of £2,000 an acre. You would not have had £50 an acre given for it until the Great Central Railway was constructed. How are you to discover what land is going to become good building land in the course of the next 10 or 15 years?
§ Mr. G. S. BOWLESHow are you going to in the case of a company?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am quite willing to go back to the statutory company, but that is a totally different case. It is the case where they produce title deeds showing they paid three times the value of the land, and that is taken as the original site value. How can you do that in regard to agricultural land unless there is a valuation? How are you to give title deeds? In many cases you cannot get title deeds. They may go back before the flood. You cannot trace them. The Noble Lord says, "Why do not you set up some sort of artificial standard?" An artificial standard is not fair to anyone. The standard of the statutory company is a real standard. It represents money which they have actually paid, and it would be unfair to get any other standard. But you have agricultural land worth £100 an acre or worth £150 an acre which is really agricultural land. If you take a £50 standard 1155 when the real value is £150 that would be unfair to the owner. Take land, on the other hand, where the agricultural value is not worth £5 an acre. I know a whole village built on land which for agricultural purposes was not worth £5 an acre. It was more or less rotten swamp. If you are going to credit the owner with a £50 value that is unfair to the State; and you are unjust to the State in one case and unjust at the expense of the landowner in another case. It is not fair to anyone. It is said we should not ascertain the real value. What is the unfairness of it? Suppose the land increases in value; suppose it is only worth £20 an acre, and you sell it for £100, what is unfair in taking the real value? Why should you make your increment an artificial one of £50? Suppose the land is worth £100 an acre for artificial purposes and you sell it at £110, why should you say to the owner, "You must pay on an increment from £50, because we have taken a purely artificial line?" If you take the real line of value nobody is injured. You are dealing with the real facts of the case. The Noble Lord says it is not fiscal, but it shows you are trying to arrive at a pure fiscal basis of taxation, instead of an artificial one. You are trying to arrive at the facts of the case. For that reason I think the Government are doing what is fair to the owners, what is fair to the State, what is fair to everybody all round, by taking what is the real value of the land, and not some artificial estimate, as suggested by the Noble Lord.
§ Mr. A. C. SALTERI have listened, with some regret, to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made. I hope that I, at any rate, will not be charged with importing party feeling into this matter if I say that the lines the Government take in regard to this exemption from valuation of this agricultural land will be considered in the country as a great test of the sincerity of those professions with regard to agricultural land of which we have heard so much. This Amendment raises the point—is, or is not, the whole of the land of the United Kingdom to be subject to the 1909 valuation? It is open to all of us to indicate classes of land which we say should be taken out. I do not desire to trouble the Committee, except in regard to one class of land. I have the honour to represent a Constituency (Basingstoke) which is very largely agricultural, and I desire to urge upon the 1156 Committee and again upon the Government the question of the exemption o£ valuation of agricultural land. And when, I say agricultural land, I mean land which is from the valuer's point of view purely agricultural land, agricultural land which has in it on that hypothesis no element of value at all except that which is due to the capacity of the land for agricultural purposes. My submission is that, in view of the professions to which we have listened, purely agricultural land is entitled to exemption, not merely from the tax, but from the valuation. In the case of an ordinary tax, no doubt, if you speak of exempting from the tax, you merely mean it shall not pay the tax, but in speaking of a particular tax like this, which has attached to it costly and vexatious machinery, there will be in this country an enormous number of cases in which the expense put upon the owner of land due to the machinery will be a very great and a very important matter. I quite agree that there is not a foot of land in this country to which the Government valuer must not go, and which he must not look at, and to which he must not apply his mind and his trained judgment. But purely agricultural land is entitled to exemption from valuation in this sense, that it is entitled to the exemption from the machinery of valuation which is contained in Sections 16 and 17, and all the expense incidental to it, which is thrown on the land. That is to say, that in the case of purely agricultural land we are entitled to this, that the Government valuer who goes and examines that land and comes to the conclusion that that land is land which has in it at the present time no element of value whatever, except its purely agricultural value, should go away from that land, and that no returns and no information and no expenses will be thrown upon the landowner in regard to that value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that for the purposes of the taxes which we have sanctioned the valuation of all land—I am only concerned with purely agricultural land—that the valuation of all purely agricultural land for the 1909 valuation, is necessary. Take first the Increment Value Duty. He says that "It is necessary, to recover this Increment Value Duty, that you shall make a 1909 valuation of purely agricultural land." I think I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon the Paper, in pursuance of pledges which he gave, a new clause which exempts purely agricultural land from 1157 Increment Value Duty. I cannot repeat the exact words, but I shall correctly summarise them when I say he proposes to enact that purely agricultural land, so long as it remains purely agricultural land, shall not be liable to Increment Duty; that purely agricultural increment shall not be taxed. Therefore, so far, you do not need a 1909 site value valuation. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says a time will come when that land will have acquired a value outside its purely agricultural value, a building or industrial value, and I quite agree that we must contemplate that condition. But I submit that that does not require a 1909 valuation. As soon as the land acquires ever so minute an extra agricultural value it will leave the class with which we are dealing; it will cease to be purely agricultural land and will become liable not only to Undeveloped Land Duty, but will become liable to Increment Value Duty.
But on what are these two duties to be paid? On the non-agricultural element and the non-agricultural element only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "When that event happens where shall we be? We shall be casting about to assess these two duties, and we shall have no guidance as to the non-agricultural value of the land." Certainly you cannot get it now, because it is not there, but you will have it, because every five years the whole of the land in the country is to be looked at to see whether or not it comes within the clause as to undeveloped land— every five years for all future time. No sooner will any field in this country have, in addition to its purely agricultural value, ever so minute an element of non-agricultural value than the Government valuer will be down upon it, and he will assess it both for the purposes of Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong in saying that the 1909 valuation is not necessary. In the case of the Reversion Duty the Government have accepted an Amendment of mine which will alter the nature of that tax very much. The Reversion Duty is paid upon the total real value of the land at the beginning of the term, and the real total value at the end. That is to be furnished by the owner and checked by the Government, but certainly no valuation of the land is incidental to that valuation at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong in his only point that there is no necessity for the 1909 valuation in regard to purely agricultural 1158 land. I press this consideration all the more earnestly because I am greatly impressed with the illusory character, even if we carry this clause, of this promised exemption of agricultural land. In my own Constituency there is a very large amount of typical agricultural land. There is an area there, I suppose, of some 200 square miles of purely agricultural land in the conventional sense of the word; but it is land within an hour of a town, land not far from a main line of railway, and if you were to go to any competent valuer with local knowledge and ask him to prepare a map of the land in my Constituency, colouring pink that which he was prepared to stake his reputation upon as having no element of value except that which is purely agricultural, he would colour extremely little land. So far as one can see, every yard of that land really has a very minute value apart from purely agricultural value which would take it out of this clause, and which would cause a man to give a little more for it because it has attached to it a remote building contingency.
These areas of agricultural land throughout the country, which have a remote building value attached to them, are enormously large, and they are being increased rapidly every day by the use of motor cars. I have recently seen advertisements of land for development in which it was made a positive inducement that it was a long way from any railway station. People are now buying, to develop, land which is a long way from railway stations, on the strength of the use of motor cars. I quite agree that that land must be dealt with, but what will be the effect? The effect will be that over very large areas in this country you will have the valuation of that class of property, for the sake of the miserable sum which will be paid upon a small fraction which has a remote building value. There is the maximum cost to the country, the maximum cost to the landowner, and the minimum of revenue. It is in view of that consideration that I press on the Government not to decide hastily to include purely agricultural land. Purely agricultural land is very large in area, and it will mean an enormous cost to the taxpayer to include it. It will mean an enormous cost to the owner. It is idle to say that since the owner is not liable for the tax he need not trouble whether he is assessed or not. He will be a very unwise man if he did not contest it, although no immediate tax depends upon it. I, also, am no authority on constitutional matters, but I suggest 1159 that it is a doubtful course for this House, even from the high constitutional view, to set up a costly fiscal machinery which is not now incidental or necessarily incidental to any tax which you are setting up. Agricultural people are watching this Amendment very anxiously. What will they think is behind it? Agricultural land is not to be taxed, and yet it is to be valued. Why do you want to value it if there is no tax coming from it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we ought to keep demonstrating that it is not necessary. That is not the real reason. Agricultural people will ask themselves what is the real reason, and they will say that you intend before very long to put on new taxation which you have not now disclosed, but for the imposition of which you will find this valuation a very useful ground. If there is any real proof of sincerity in all these professions we have heard of benevolent intentions towards agriculture in this country, then purely agricultural land ought absolutely to stand outside this welter of dispute, difference, uncertainty, and expense, which you are setting up and applying to all other land.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONI desire to ask one or two questions of the Government in regard to agricultural land in Ireland. In the first place, almost the whole of Ireland is agricultural land in the ordinary sense, and I want to know specifically from the Government whether every acre of agricultural land in Ireland is to be valued under this Bill. Have the Government considered that in relation to Ireland the proposals of this Bill mean that hundreds of thousands of people who have bought their farms under the Irish Land Acts will be victims in the matter? Have they realised that it means that the Government valuer will go to each of these individual farmers, who will be put to considerable expense in litigating these questions? The Government themselves, when they originally framed this Bill—although, I dare say, they have forgotten it—saw the necessity of drawing a distinction in relation to Ireland. They put a provision into the Bill which they now propose to leave out, that in relation to agricultural land in Ireland the owners were not obliged to send in any return. Although it is not possible to say what is agricultural land, and what is not, apparently when the Government originally framed the Bill they thought that what was impossible in England was quite possible in Ireland. The possibilities 1160 absolutely depended not so much on the nature of the land as upon the number of Members from Ireland who would vote in favour of the Budget. The Nationalist party have now been squared, and they take no interest whatsoever in regard to the question of the taxation or valuation of the land of those tenants in Ireland to whom they are so absolutely devoted. Since Nationalist Members have gone away to Ireland it is apparently now thought just as desirable to ascertain the value of agricultural land in Ireland as in England. I do not know why that change has been made, but it certainly has been made in the Bill. There is another point to which I would like to call attention. As far as I can see, this tribunal that you are going to set up, with Referees, is also to apply to Ireland, where there is a Valuation Department already. There has been a general valuation of the whole of Ireland. They have got the machinery there. It was set up at a cost of thousands and thousands of pounds. They have directions under an Act of Parliament as to how valuation is to be carried out—far more accurate directions than anything that is going to be set up by this Bill. And what are you doing? You are throwing over the whole of the Valuation Department in Ireland, and you are setting up a new Department in England winch is to control the valuation of Ireland, though there is a valuation authority already in existence there. That seems to be an absurdity. To say that you are to have a tribunal of Referees appointed by judges and the chairman of the Surveyors' Institute, or whatever he is called, seems to me to be an absurdity. The truth of the matter is this: This Bill takes so many forms from day to day, the Government are so much at sea every moment when questions of this kind arise, and the Irish Nationalist Members no longer attend as they did to their business in relation to this n after, that the Government forget that there is such a place as Ireland at all. If they have forgotten it, I propose to make myself a nuisance in regard to the matter. That is the only way in which you ever get the Government to attend to Ireland at all. I say it would be a perfect scandal to set up this machinery in relation to Ireland, having regard to the fact that adequate machinery is already in existence, but, above and beyond that, comes the other question which I hope will be noted in Ireland, namely, are you really and seriously in regard to purely agricultural land 1161 such as that in Ireland going to ask the tenants who are now paying their instalments in order to enable them to become owners to go to the expense of this valuation?
7.0 P.M.
I believe it would be very much resented; and I believe the moment you began to try and carry it out, and when the Members from Ireland have received whatever favour you are going to give them this Session, I believe you will not be allowed by the Members from Ireland to carry it out. Therefore, I do ask the Government, not the Attorney-General or any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen I see opposite for the moment, to tell me about those matters, and I do ask to have the matter fully considered to see if they cannot leave out of consideration the agricultural land in Ireland which requires no valuation. In fact, I may say that for the last twenty-five years we have been doing nothing but valuing Ireland. We have in Ireland at the present moment the Land Commission Courts and the Land Purchase Courts. In this country anybody can value land. In Ireland it takes a court of three, presided over by a lawyer, with two skilful valuers, while there is a further court of appeal. We have as well the Valuation Board and the Land Purchase Commissioners for the purpose of valuing what ought to be paid on land purchase from the State. Now you set up a third valuation department with your Referees and your Revenue Commissioners. I hope before we pass from this clause that some intimation will be given as to how agricultural land in Ireland is to be considered, and that the country will not be put to the unnecessary expense of making a valuation in those cases.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that this is a business question. What we have to consider on this side is whether or not the valuation of all the land of England is honestly and really, as a business tribunal, necessary for the purposes of the financial year. Some of us have fears that the reason for the valuation of all the land has some ulterior motive, such as land nationalisation. Let me come to the details and see whether there is any possible reason why all the land should be valued, and let me refer to the land which I sometimes have to deal with—that is, land owned by municipal corporations. By Clause 24 of this Bill all property which belongs to a rating authority is 1162 absolutely exempt and free of taxation under this part of the Bill, and, further than that, it goes on to say that if at any time in the future any question arises as to such land, then the Increment Value Duty is to be taken as having been paid during the time. I would ask any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches if they can give any reason why it is necessary to value that land? The London County Council propose to build a great edifice on the other side of the river, and for the purposes of this Bill what would be the object of valuing that on which no duty is to be charged? Clause 24 provides, "Any Increment Value Duty in respect of any such land which would have been collected from the authority shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act as to the collection of Increment Value Duty, be deemed to have been paid." Therefore any valuation would be absolutely useless, and where is the necessity for this valuation of the property of each municipal authority? If you are going to nationalise the land, there is every reason why you should have this valuation, because you will have to buy all the property of the corporations. I use the word "buy" as a euphemistic expression, and perhaps I should say "acquire" all the land of the corporations. Then to take another example. Of course you have to get the value of Westminster Abbey, and to go through the extraordinary calculation of valuing when you have taken away all the structure, which would be a matter of no difficulty to an expert valuer, the Government tell us. I should add that the Abbey is exempt from taxes under this Bill as it comes under the head of charitable purposes. Can anyone suggest any return on the great expense that will be gone to in making this capricious value, or any defence for such a valuation? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer get any three business men from any quarter of the House on such a point as this to get up in their places and say that they would look upon this as a sound financial transaction? I ought to add I am interested to a certain extent in this question, and that is as regards university property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very kindly and fairly met the Universities in certain ways, and has said that certain exemptions will be given to certain college properties, such as the Senate House at Cambridge, certain college chapels, and college halls in the University of Cambridge. He has met us quite fairly on it, but incidentally I may say that is 1163 part of Clause 25. We are to have Amendments on this question, and I have asked frequently for them. We may possibly have to discuss them to-night or to-morrow, according to the programme of the Prime Minister. We were promised ample time, and that, of course, is ample time, to discuss mere Amendments dealing with intricate points of law. Does anyone seriously suggest it is necessary to value those buildings? Does there not in some suspicious mind lurk the idea that this valuation is not honestly made for the purpose of finance, but that it is made from some ulterior object?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)I think we can scarcely argue with those who are determined to suspect some ulterior motive in the minds of those who are putting forward what is, after all, a plain business proposition. If hon. Members opposite are determined to suspect that all we desire is to have a basis upon which to put still further burdens, all that we can do is to leave them with their suspicions. It is sufficient for us if we justify the necessity for the valuation. That is all that we have got to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) put the matter at an early stage on what seemed to me its proper basis. He said, "Before you can justify your valuation you must show that it is necessary. You have no right to put into a Finance Bill that which is not a necessity of your tax." That is the proposition upon which we rely. Is the valuation necessary for the tax? If so, then we must have a valuation or we cannot have the tax. It would be a preposterous thing to say that there are some taxes to be for ever ruled out because a valuation is necessary, or because a valuation might include land which ultimately may not come under the charge. That would be an absurd proposition, both constitutionally and fiscally. Either the tax is right and proper or it is not, and for present purposes we assume it is right and proper. Then if you have got to ascertain the value in 1909, when is the right time to do it? Obviously you should do it as soon as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] An hon. Member asks "Why?" The whole scheme of the Bill, not devised in the interest of the Exchequer, but very largely in the interest of the land-owning classes as well, is that the value on 30th April, 1164 1909, should be exempt. That is an enormously important concession from a fiscal point of view to any class called on to pay taxes. Ordinarily no such exemption applies when you are putting taxes on other forms of property. What we are doing here is saying, "Your property as it existed on the 30th April, L909, shall be absolutely exempt from Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty." That fixes a date on which we must have a valuation, not only because it is the date for the Increment Tax, but because it fixes exactly the amount of exemption to which the taxpayer is entitled. It is his interest as well as ours that there should be ascertained at the earliest date, as precisely as possible, the exempt value of his property. To leave that over until 30 or 40 years hence would be possibly unfair to him, and possibly unfair to the State, and certainly it would be a most inadequate way of dealing with the value which is so important both to him and to us, namely, the value which is not to be taxed. That shows, at all events, the necessity for the valuation. The Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil), in asking us to find out some other means of ascertaining the original site value, gave as an instance what we have done in the case of statutory companies. I may point out that in that case we do take the original site value. Would it be fair in the case of property which cost them £l,000 an acre on the supposition that it would be developed for building, but which, in fact, has never been developed, for us to take a valuer's valuation, and charge duty on the whole of the value? Obviously not. What we do is to take as the original site value the sum actually paid by the company. But how does that form any basis for dealing with the rest of the property? It offers no basis at all. The right hon. Member for Dublin University asked. "What are you setting up this machinery for in Ireland?" We are setting up for Ireland as we are setting up for England a panel of Referees, and we are giving the Irish landowner, if he desires to avail himself of it, the same appeal that we are giving to the English landowner. But beyond that every bit of the machinery in Ireland will be available to the Commissioners so far as they need it at all. The value, however, is pretty well ascertained, and it will not need much revision. But if any revision is needed, the existing valuing machinery in Ireland will be used by the Commissioners, with the addition that, if 1165 the Irish landowner chooses to avail himself of it, he will have the panel of Referees to which I have referred.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI wish to put this case with regard to agricultural land which, valued as pure agricultural land, has a site value of £5 or £10 an acre. There will be a great area of land in that position. That land may be agriculturally improved by the owner going to great expense in chalking it, which will double the value of some land, but has no influence upon its value as building land; or other expenditure may be incurred, and its agricultural value may rise to £40 or £50 an acre. If, for some reason, it subsequently becomes building land and subject to Increment Value Duty, will the owner of that land under the Bill as drawn become liable to Increment Value Duty, not only on the difference between the agricultural value and the building value, but also upon the agricultural increment which has accrued from the time when the original site value was fixed? It is obvious that the owner ought to pay only on the building increment, and not on the agricultural increment. If the Attorney-General will say by what words in the Bill the owner is saved from having to pay on the purely agricultural increment I shall be grateful.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe Attorney-General defended the position which the Government have taken up by saying that this valuation was a plain fiscal proposition; but I have grave doubts whether it is, or is really intended to be, a fiscal proposition at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not said a single word in reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). On the contrary, he actually adduced an argument which is in entire confirmation of my hon. Friend's speech He said that the whole justification of this valuation is the existence of the tax. "Very well," says my hon. Friend, "the absence of the tax is a justification for the absence of valuation." To that the Attorney-General made no answer, and I do not believe there is any answer. May I point out the absurdity, from a business point of view, of this valuation as applied to Scotland? It is not an ordinary valuation as for the purpose of Income Tax. It is a survey of every plot of land, with its value in the year 1909. What on earth is the use of making such a survey of land in the middle of the moors which abound in the North of Scotland? The owners with whom you are going to deal are not only dukes and so on, 1166 but crofters. The boundaries of every single croft will have to be defined and the valuation fixed. I do not know how many crofts there are, nor whether the Government have considered the difficulties which will face them. I do not know what the crofters will say when the valuer comes upon them; but I know what they will think and say to themselves. They will say, "It is all very well to talk about exemptions from the tax, but what does the Government mean by valuing the land in this way? It looks very much as if they were going to impose taxation upon us at some time or other"; and I do not know that the crofters will be very far wrong.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe new clause says: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." What is the effect of that? We get the original site Value now of land which has a very low value. If that land passes out of the agricultural category into the building category, we take the building value, and the building value only. Supposing, in the meantime, the land has been subjected to a process of improvement in value, not only of a building character but of an agricultural character, the moment the land acquires a building value it really changes its character and becomes subject to taxation. We tax it on the whole of its building value, ignoring its agricultural value.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIts new agricultural value?
§ Sir W. ROBSONIgnoring its new agricultural value.
§ Mr. PRETYMANUnder what provision?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThat is how the scheme works.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNot on the words just quoted.
§ Sir W. ROBSONYes. You charge no Increment Value Duty at all while the land remains purely agricultural, but when the land has ceased to be merely agricultural, and began to have a building value, we put the tax on the whole building value.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat, I think, clearly establishes my contention and confirms my fear. In the words quoted by the 1167 Attorney-General there is nothing about deducting the agricultural value at the time the new valuation is made. You deduct only the original site value at the low agricultural figure, and if that land subsequently becomes liable to this building tax the whole of the difference between the original agricultural value and the improved agricultural value, which may be entirely due to the exertions and expenditure of the owner, will be taxable.
The CHAIRMANI do not understand the relevance of this discussion to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEI do not propose to discuss the new clause to which reference has been made, but it is clear from what has passed that it will have to be amended before it becomes part of the Bill. I wish to press a point which arises directly out of the discussion which has just taken place. The Attorney-General admits that there should be no valuation, unless one is required for the purpose of the tax. Take purely agricultural land. Must it be valued for the purposes of the tax? Clearly not for the Undeveloped Land Duty, because it is exempt from that altogether. And clearly not for the purpose of the Reversion Duty, because that does not depend on value. Therefore there remains only the Increment Value Duty. Need you value agricultural land for the purpose of Increment Value Duty? The new clause says this:—"That Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land, while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." Therefore, until it attains a value higher than the purely agricultural value, that land cannot be taxed at all. Why not then postpone the valuation until the moment when it begins to have a value higher than agricultural? That is the whole point of my hon. Friend's argument. It is said, How are you to find it out? It is perfectly easy to find it out. The Commissioners look at the land now and say they are satisfied by ordinary means that it is purely agricultural land, and that they need not value it at all. But every five years, under Clause 18, there must be a new return of all undeveloped land, and the moment agricultural land begins to have a building value there must be a return under Clause 18 for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty. The moment that return is made and there is building 1168 value in this land is the rime to make your valuation. I think the point raised by this new clause is a strong argument in favour of the view that you should not value that land at all which is purely agricultural. No answer yet has been given to the point made as to Clause 24 by the hon. Member for Cambridge, who showed quite clearly that in the case of the land there referred to, belonging to rating authorities, there is no need whatever to value that in 1909. It is free from all the three duties, and even when that land is sold by the rating authority Increment Value Duty is not charged on the increased value. That being so, there is no excuse whatever for valuing the land. The point, I repeat, turns mainly on the two cases— that of purely agricultural land and land belonging to rating authorities.
§ Mr. JAMES TOMKINSONI should like to know the intentions of the Government on the point that has been raised. Take the case of land worth £20 an acre. It is not good agricultural land, but rather poor. In course of time—I have seen it done—it passes into an orchard, and then at once it acquires a larger value; its value, indeed, being increased, when let for market gardens or orchards, two-fold, three-fold, and even four-fold. That land may be worth £20 to start with, and it goes up to £100, and even £200 if it is let for the purposes of orchards or market gardens, at a rent of, say, £7 per acre. But the proprietor of that land, although it is worth £200 an acre to him, thinks it would be still more valuable if he turned it into building land. He puts it into the market and gets £500 an acre for it. I want to know, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wants to know, whether the increment value will be charged upon the difference between £20 and £500, or between £200—
The CHAIRMANThat point, as I said, is not before the Committee. The only point relevant is that of valuation.
Mr. BALFOUROn the point of order, the words of the clause say that the valuation shall be taken immediately for all land. If the valuation of agricultural land were omitted, and deferred to a period when it was on the verge of becoming building land, the point raised by my gallant Friend, by the hon. Member opposite, and by my hon. and learned Friend behind me would be met, and it would be, and could only be met, so far as I can see, by the acceptance of the Amendment. I 1169 would venture to ask whether—instead of dwelling upon it—it is in order to find out whether really the Government may charge the Increment Value Duties upon the lowest point—or what is by a hypothesis the lowest point—or upon the higher point?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say that the question raised was not before the Committee at the present time.
The CHAIRMANThis is an Amendment to leave out "all" agricultural land. I really do not see that the question can be properly raised here.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI understand, Mr. Emmott, on the point of order, that for the general convenience that you decided that we should on this Amendment take the whole question, including agricultural land. If you remember your first suggestion was that this particularly refers to agricultural land. I submit that it is only in this way that we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by accepting what arises out of this Amendment in regard to agricultural land, namely, that the valuation shall not be taken now at the lowest point, but that it shall be taken at a later period, at the moment when agricultural land passes from the agricultural area into the building area; and that by that very action of deferment the agricultural value would all be credited which had accrued in the intermediate time up to the building period. That is the only form in which we can move a satisfactory Amendment dealing with this point. That does bring it within the purview of this Amendment as agreed upon to cover agricultural land.
The CHAIRMANI am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. It seems to me that the matter should be raised on a taxing rather than a valuation clause.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEHow many separate valuations does the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplate under this clause? Can he tell us how many separate valuations the Commissioners will have to make?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIf all the land is to be valued the number of assessments will be entirely excessive, and cannot possibly be done within any reasonable time. It appears upon the best figures I have been 1170 able to get that there are some 118½ millions of acres of land in the United Kingdom. The next question that arises upon that is what average unity of valuation you can take. I know that is a very difficult question. You have, on the one hand, enormous spaces such as moors, and so on, covering many hundreds of acres, and, on the other hand, you have acres sub-divided into small plots covered by a single cottage. May I suggest that probably the average unity of valuation would be 20 acres. If that be so you would arrive at some nearly 6,000,000 of separate valuations divided between 118½ millions of acres. There is a certain light thrown upon the question by a return of the owners of land called for by Parliament in 1872, and presented in 1876. It appears that the Local Government Board was the authority for making this return. They said that they had to deal with 5,000,000 separate assessments. If the Local Government Board had to deal in that year with 5,000,000 separate assessments, I do not think I shall be above the mark in saying that the Commissioners now would deal with 6,000,000. This particular return is rather instructive for the purpose of showing the extraordinary difficulties of valuation. What was the return? It was a return merely of owners of land in England and Wales, and all that was asked for was the name and address of the owner, the extent of his land, and the gross estimate of rental. The instructions were issued in September, 1872, but it took two years actually to get the last answer for this comparatively simple return. An examination of the papers disclosed the fact that there were a quarter of a million of defects in them. The greatest difficulty was found in ascertaining who the owners of the land were, and this necessitated exhaustive inquiry. The inquiry then goes on to refer to the question of when a long leaseholder becomes an owner, and the Board decided that they would only admit as an owner anyone who had a lease of more than 99 years. In the case of the present Bill it is 50 years. They could not deal with the question of joint ownership. Where there was a joint ownership they only gave one of the names. There was a peculiar difficulty in one part of the United Kingdom. The Summary Digest says:—
A reference to some of the Welsh counties where there are large numbers of owners of the same Christian and surname, e.g., the county of Cardigan, where the name David Davies occurs above 53 times, and John Jones above 70 times, will show the labour involved in, this branch of the inquiry, and it may be added that 1171 independently of other inquiries upwards of 300,000 separate applications had to be sent to the clerks in order to clear up questions in reference to duplicate entries.They go on to say the actual acreage of the holdings was in some cases very doubtful, and they point out that they have not included property that did not appear in the parish lists, and they have not included mines and woodlands, and then they add: "From the foregoing statements it will be seen that the present Return is simply a compilation from public documents existing in each parish throughout England and Wales." They then go on to apologise for the undoubted errors into which they have been led. That was not a valuation; it was merely a Return of land in England and Wales, not including London, and it took two years to obtain it, and similar difficulties were found in Scotland and Ireland. What is to be done by the Commissioners under this Bill? They have not merely to get a Return of different classes, but they have to make a complete valuation and survey; and then they have to duplicate their valuation between site value and total value, they have to consider all lessees of over 50 years as owners, they have to consider all the in
§ terest of the land to make apportionments, and they have to do innumerable other things. And they have to take into account what is the exact amount that may be attributable to the value of the land. From this it will be seen that the task before these Commissioners is enormously greater than the very simple task which from the years 1872–74 occupied the Local Government Board, with all their powers. I do submit that the Government should undertake this task piecemeal and by degrees. Let them begin, if they like, with the county boroughs. They had better not attempt this gigantic task, for which there is no precedent, and they will be far wiser if they confine their operations within certain limits. This would be all very well if there was suggested a great Imperial Roman census, and that in the eighth year of the reign of King Edward a decree came forth from the Treasurer that all the land should be enrolled.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 94.
1173| Division No. 453.] | AYES. | [7.50 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Harwood, George |
| Armitage, R. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Crooks, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Crossley, William J. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Curran, Peter Francis | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Duckworth, Sir James | Henry, Charles S. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beauchamp, E. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Bell, Richard | Elibank, Master of | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Erskine, David C. | Hodge, John |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Essex, R. W. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hooper, A. G. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Brace, William | Everett, R. Lacey | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) |
| Branch, James | Fenwick, Charles | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bright, J. A. | Ferens, T. R. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brooke, Stopford | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Hudson, Walter |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Jackson, R. S. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gill, A. H. | Jenkins, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Glendinning, R G. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Glover, Thomas | Jowett, F. W. |
| Causton, Rt. Hen. Richard Knight | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Lambert, George |
| Cleland, J. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Lamont, Norman |
| Clough, William | Hancock, J. G. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Marcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Taylor, Jonn W. (Durham) |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Radford, G H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Maclean, Donald | Rees, J. D. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Richardson, A. | Tomkinson, James |
| M'Callum, John M. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Toulmin, George |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Verney, F. W. |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Vivian, Henry |
| Marnham, F. J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Massie, J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Walton, Joseph |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wardle, George J. |
| Middlebrook, William | Rowlands, J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Morrell, Philip | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Myer, Horatio | Scott. A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Napier, T. B. | Sears, J. E. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Seely, Colonel | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Shackleton, David James | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Grady, J. | Simon, John Ailsebrook | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| O'Malley, William | Snowden, P. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Partington, Oswald | Steadman, W. C. | Winfrey, R. |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Summerbell, T. | |
| Pointer, J. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Guinness. Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, Frederick Leverton) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Renton, Leslie |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renwick, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Salter, Arthur Claveli |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Keswick, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Doughty, Sir George | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Foster, P. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. |
| Gordon, J. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| Guilding, Edward Alfred | Oddy, John James | Forster. |
| Gretton, John | Parkes, Ebenezer |
§ Question put, "That the word 'all' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
1174§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 96.
1177| Division No. 454] | AYES. | [8.0 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Armitage, R. | Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Atherley-Jones, L. | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Helme, Norval Watson | Radford, G. H. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bell, Richard | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Richardson, A. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Higham, John Sharp | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hodge, John | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Brace, William | Holt, Richard Durning | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Branch, James | Hooper, A. G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bright, J. A. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rogers, F E. Newman |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hornlman, Emslie John | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rowlands, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hudson, Walter | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Idris, T. H. W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jackson, R S. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jardine, Sir J. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jenkins, J. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Johnson, John (Gateshead | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Sears, J. E. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jowett, F. W. | Seely, Colonel |
| Cleland, J. W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Shackleton, David James |
| Clough, William | Laldlaw, Robert | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Clynes, J. R | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Simon, John Alisebrook |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lambert, George | Snowden, P. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lehmann, R. C | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Crooks, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Summerbell, T. |
| Crossley, William J. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Macdonald, J R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Maclean, Donald | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macpherson, J. T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | M'Callum, John M. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Elibank, Master of | Mallet, Charles E. | Toulmin, George |
| Erskine, David C. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Essex, R. W. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Verney, F. W. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Marnham, F. J. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Massie, J. | Vivian, Henry |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Masterman, C. F. G. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Fenwick, Charles | Middlebrook, William | Walton, Joseph |
| Ferens, T. R. | Molteno, Percy Aiport | Wardle, George J. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Morrell, Philip | Watt, Henry A. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Gill, A. H. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Myer, Horatio | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Glendinning, R. G | Napier, T. B. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Glover, Thomas | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Norman, Sir Henry | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G (Hull, W.) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | O Grady, J. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | O'Malley, William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Hancock, John George | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Winfrey, R. |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Harwood, George | Pointer, J. | |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Banner, John S. Harmood- | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Cave, George |
| Ashley, W. W. | Bowles, G Stewart | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Clyde, J. Avon |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Bull, Sir William James | Ccates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Carlile, E. Hildred | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hunt, Rowland | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rasdles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Kerry, Earl of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Doughty, Sir George | Keswick, William | Renton, Leslie |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kimber, Sir Henry | Renwick, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Fell, Arthur | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Forster, Henry William | Lock wood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Foster, P. S | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Gibb, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Gordon, J. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Starkey, John R. |
| Gretton, John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Morpeth, Viscount | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Newdegate, F. A. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Oddy, John James | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Hills, J. W. | Percy, Earl | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Lane-Fox. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
Question, "That the words 'and distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
§ Amendment made, in Section (1), to leave out the word "their" ["their land as estimated"] and to insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTER moved, in Section (1), after the word "land" ["land as estimated in each case"], to insert the words "and distinguishing that portion of the site value which is due to the capacity of the land for agricultural purposes."
§ I do not think I owe any apology to the Committee for handing in this Amendment in manuscript, because, having regard to the circumstances under which this Committee is now being conducted, it is impossible to have all the Amendments handed in in time to be placed on the Paper. I will endeavour to make my object clear. My Amendment proposes to enact that the valuers when they value the site value of agricultural land shall enter in separate columns that portion of the site value which is agricultural and that portion which is non-agricultural. I am very glad to have the opportunity of moving this Amendment, becauses it raises a point which upon a previous occasion did not receive a very satisfactory reply from the Government. Supposing there is an area of land which has an agricultural value of £10, and that value is raised to £30, will the Increment Value Duty be paid only on the new building increment or on the agricultural increment as well? I was surprised to hear the somewhat confused 1178 and unsatisfactory answer to that question. I had thought it was made quite clear that the Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty were not in any circumstances to be paid on any element of purely agricultural value or increment. I certainly had thought, and I am sure people outside had thought, that the concession had at any rate been obtained unequivocally that purely agricultural land, whatever its increment, should be wholly exempt from these taxes. The manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive this Amendment will make it perfectly clear whether that is so or not.
§ My submission is that if you are going to confine the tax to non-agricultural increment you must distinguish in your 1909 valuation agricultural from non-agricultural site value, or you cannot afterwards decide whether the increment is agricultural or not. I will take the simplest possible concrete case and apply to it what will be the common daily machinery. Suppose a man is selling an area of land which I will assume to be all agricultural land. He has to send his conveyance up to Somerset House. He will say, "You see the purchase price of the land I am selling is £5,000. Will you kindly let me know the duty payable?" The Commissioners will thereupon have first of all to ascertain what is called the site value on the occasion. They will take £5,000, the total value, and make the deductions which Clause 2 require, and so arrive at the site value. That is the easiest part of their task. I assume they arrive at the site value of £3,500. In order to see whether an increment has taken place or not they 1179 must turn to the 1909 register, which, I will assume, dates 20 years back. They will not find the area there in the ordinary case; they will find all sorts of other areas, and will have to work out this area as best they can by getting together certain other 1909 areas—other snippets and small pieces. Anyone who has considered how this will work has seen the perpetual subdivision which will go on with no power of aggregation. The register will soon get into a condition of an enormous number of minute areas. Having identified the land, the Commissioners will then have to proceed to apportion, asking themselves in each case as to each fraction of land which goes to make up the whole area what would have been the site value of these fractions in 1909, 20 years ago. I will assume these industrious officials have done all that. It will be a matter of enormous difficulty, and obviously it will be a mere conjecture, because people will be asking themselves, "If we had been alive in 1909, and had been valuing the southwest corner of this field, what would have been the value we should have attached to it?" Let us suppose all that done, and that they have arrived at a 1909 site value of £3,000. They will then say to the owner we ascertain here an increment of £500. We make the 1909 site value £3,000, and the present value £3,500. You must therefore pay £100. That, however, does not dispose of the matter or in the least ascertain the taxpayer's liability. The owner will say, "Yes, I accept all that, but this £500 increment is purely agricultural, and I pay no Increment Value Duty upon it. There has been no increase in the building value of this land. On the contrary, the building contingency has rather dwindled in the last 20 years. The change which has taken place is purely in the agricultural value." If I am right in the contention that the Government honestly do not desire to exact this duty on agriculural increment, the owner will be perfectly right, and will owe no tax, although an increment has taken place.
§ How can the Commissioners ascertain whether there has been a non-agricultural increment on which alone the duty is to be paid? It is perfectly clear—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me—that the only way in which you can ascertain that is by looking to see what is the present agricultural site value, eliminating that value which is due to any building contingency; and, looking again 1180 at what was the agricultural site value, eliminating any building contingency when the 1909 valuation was made. It is only by comparing those two agricultural site values that you can get at the non-agricultural increment on which alone duty is payable. Is not that incontrovertible? If this Amendment is rejected, the Commissioners will have to go back to the 1909 valuation and ask themselves a fresh series of questions as to every small piece of land with which they will have to deal, and which goes to make up the area in question. They will have to ask themselves: Supposing we had been valuing the land in 1909, what is the proportion of the site value we should then have attributed under the then conditions to agriculture? Really it brings the matter to a perfect absurdity. It is obvious they cannot do that, and that they cannot ascertain the non-agricultural increment unless, when they turn up the 1909 register, they can see there not merely a site value of 1909 of £3,000, but that site value divided into two parts, £2,500 agricultural and £500 building contingency. Only if they can see that will it be possible to ascertain the non-agricultural increment. Having once made this concession to agriculture, the Government must carry it out by this piece of machinery, or their plan is unworkable. It will be impossible to ascertain what is purely the agricultural increment unless you have separately stated in 1909 that portion of the site value which is due purely to agriculture. It is absolutely necessary that the Government should accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe point before the Committee is really a simple one, although the hon. Member has made a very long speech which is more or less irrelevant to the Amendment. It can be stated in a minute. I accept the Amendment, but it will be necessary to substitute the word "value" for "capacity" in order to-make it conform to Section (2) of Clause 11. The hon. and learned Gentleman put forward all sorts of reasons in order to find one valid one for the Amendment he had put down. Under Clause 11, Section (2), it must be the value of the land, because we only charge the Undeveloped Land Duty on the margin between the agricultural value and the building value.
§ Mr. SALTERThat was the point I was trying to make.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is necessary to substitute "value" for "capacity."
§ Mr. PRETYMANI should like to be quite sure that this carries out our object. It has had to be done in a hurry. Our object is not in regard to Undeveloped Land Duty, because Clause 11, Section (2), already secures our aim. It is perfectly clear in regard to the case of agricultural land, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes. But our object is to get at the Increment Value Duty. I want to have it made perfectly clear, for this is a very important point. I do not see how this Amendment, which asks that the agricultural value shall be separately shown, meets our point, because increment value will still be charged on the whole value. I do not see where provisions are made in the Bill for the deduction. If the hon. Gentleman will explain how we are going to get the deduction, I should be satisfied. We are getting the distinction, but I do not see how we are getting the deduction in respect of Increment Value Duty under Section (2).
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is purely a question of value. We have first of all to distinguish between the agricultural value and the total site value of the land. We are dealing only with the original value. Where we charge Increment Duty, any deduction that is to be made has no reference at all to this particular Clause.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I make my point clear. It is done indirectly. If your original site value in regard to agricultural land which has acquired a building value is to be calculated from the time that that value is acquired, then your whole object is reached by simply altering the time at which the valuation is made. You arrive at it by that means perfectly simple, without affecting any other clause whatever.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat would be perfectly impossible. I think the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Salter) very much better. If the hon. and learned Member will substitute "value" for "capacity" I will accept it.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere is the question of the machinery to be subsequently introduced to carry it out. There is no object in distinguishing the agricultural value unless we understand it is to be exempted 1182 from Increment Value Duty. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge to that effect?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEReally! Anyone would imagine that I was moving the Amendment. It has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I have accepted it, and now the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) turns round and says it is worthless.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI did not say so. I desire to have this question settled. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Salter) moved the Amendment solely with the object, arising out of the Debate which we have just had, and arising out of the pledge repeatedly given by the right hon. Gentleman, that agricultural land shall not be subject to Increment Value Duty on its agricultural value. If the right hon. Gentleman will only tell us he accepts this Amendment with the intention of carrying that out, I shall be satisfied. Does he say that he did not intend anything of the sort? Did he not intend that agricultural land should be free from Increment Duty on its agricultural value?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAs long as agricultural land is agricultural land there is no charge in the shape of Undeveloped Land Duty, but the moment it passes into he category of building land it has to be valued. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to extend the whole thing. He wants, when the land becomes building land, that it shall still retain all the privileges which it had as agricultural land. I must absolutely decline to do that.
§ Mr. SALTERI will move to substitute the word "value" for "capacity"; but may I explain that I took the words of my Amendment from the Bill itself. Still, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers the word "value" I am content.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "capacity" and to insert instead thereof the word "value."
§ Question, "That the word 'capacity' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
1183§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Section (1), to omit the words, "as estimated in each case by the owners, that value being declared separately as respects."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDOf course, the way in which this clause has been altered has changed the whole scheme. It is obvious that these words will require to be left out. There are other Amendments further down on the Paper, and one of them provides that the owner of the land may, if he sees fit, furnish his own estimate of the total site value. That is the effect of the words now being left out.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is purely voluntary on his part.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDYes, instead of being compulsory, as in the Bill as originally framed. This is another illustration of the confusion which arises when we have to deal with Amendments brought forward in this way. There is one point I want to ask about. The clause contemplates that if a man chooses voluntarily to send in his particulars he shall be at liberty to do so, and the Commissioners shall take that into account; but I find that in other places references to returns sent in in that way are struck out. What I want to ask is this: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give the owners of property any facilities of any kind for sending in these returns? Is he going to furnish them with forms? How is the thing going to be done?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)That is not relevant. This is one of a series of Amendments, and it is to leave out from "land" to "each."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDOf course, it is one of a series of Amendments. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give us an explanation in a few words as to what form of procedure it is intended to adopt in the first instance. Will all the owners of land be got hold of and asked to send in their statements voluntarily if they wish? I think that would be a great help to the Commissioners, and enable them to see what land wanted valuing and what land did not. They would have some ground to go upon. The complete alteration of this clause makes it extremely difficult to follow.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI can only, with the consent of the Committee, refer to the matter, because it arises purely on a new 1184 Section (4). The course indicated by the hon. Gentleman is the course which will be followed. Forms will be supplied to all owners of land for the purpose of giving information which will assist the Government in preparing its valuation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAll the Amendments now go out down to the word "owner" ["if the owner thinks fit"].
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere is an Amendment standing before mine in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANYes, there is an Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I call upon him to move.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "the" ["as respects each piece of the land"].
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDMay I ask you, Sir, as a point of order, about the next Amendment on the Paper after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. It is an Amendment which I put down in regard to cases where the owner desires that the land should be treated separately, whether or not under separate occupation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt will not read in the altered circumstances.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDYes, Sir; it was designed to suit the altered circumstances. It is a very substantial point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member will look he will find it reads "each piece of land which the owner desires should be treated separately whether or not under separate occupation, and if the owner thinks fit as respects any part of any land, which is under separate occupation and being estimated as on the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine," obviously it does not read.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt reads having regard to the further alterations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, but with the hon. Member's. Obviously it does not read.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDMay I point of order, Sir. I understand that the are placed? We must either take this clause, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments or without, and if we try to make sense of them with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments we have some ruled in and some ruled out for the purpose of making sense with the original clause. It is a very difficult position in which we are placed.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of order, Sir. I understand that the position is this. My hon. Friend is anxious to move an Amendment, which he has drafted in such a way as to make it read with the clause as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to amend it and as it appears on this White Paper, supplied by the Government and circulated to the House, and you, Sir, have ruled that he cannot move it, because it will not read with the clause as it stands in the Bill. May I respectfully submit, Sir, that as we have the intentions of the Government set forth we must, for the purposes of this discussion, treat the clause as it appears on the White Paper, and not as it appears in the original Bill. If we are confined to moving Amendments, without regard to the subsequent Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to introduce, it is obvious that a great deal of work which is now done in Committee will have to be re-done on Report.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANMay I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Amendment of the Government it goes on to say, "Each piece of land which is under separate occupation, and, if the owner so requires, any part of any land which is under separate occupation, shall be separately valued." That is provided
§ for in the Government Amendment, and, of course, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) refers to the state of matters before this Amendment of the Government was put on the Paper.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDMy Amendment makes the Government description wider, and is to enable the owner to have pieces of land valued together, whether they are in separate occupation or not. This is a very important point.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That, in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONMay I submit that that Motion is not applicable, as there is no question before the Committee. You have called upon my Amendment, but I have hot yet moved it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must remember that the Closure may be moved at any time, even while an hon. Member is speaking.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI have not yet begun to speak.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay we have your ruling on the point of order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis excludes the point, but I have stated already my view of the Amendment that it is clearly out of order, and it is excluded.
§ Question put, "That, in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 69.
1187| Division No. 455] | AYES. | [8.50 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bowerman, C. W. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Brace, William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Branch, James | Cleland, J W. |
| Armitage, R. | Bright, J. A. | Clough, William |
| Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Brooke, Stopford | Clynes, J. R. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Brunner, J. F L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Buckmaster, Stanley O- | Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crooks, William |
| Barnes, G. N. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Byles, William Pollard | Crossley, William J. |
| Bell, Richard | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Curran, Peter Francis |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lambert, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lamont, Norman | Rowlands, J. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lehmann, R. C. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Elibank, Master of | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Esslemont, George Birdie | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lupton, Arnold | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sears, J. E. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Ferguson, R. C Munro | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Shackleton, David James |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Maclean, Donald | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Gill, A. H. | Macpherson, J. T. | Snowden, P |
| Glendinning, R. G. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Callum, John M. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Mallet, Charles E. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Summerbell, T. |
| Hancock, J. G. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Marnham, F. J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massle, J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Harvey, w. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Middlebrook, William | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Harwood, George | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Tomkinson, James |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Morrell, Philip | Toulmin, George |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips, |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Myer, Horatio | Vivian, Henry |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Napier, T. B. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Walton, Joseph |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norman, Sir Henry | Wardle, George J. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Grady J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Hodge, John | O'Malley, William | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Parker, James (Halifax) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hooper, A. G- | Partington, Oswald | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hope, John Deans (File, West) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, E.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Howard, Mon. Geoffrey | Pointer, J. | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Hudson, Walter | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Jenkins, J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Richardson, A. | Winfrey, R. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvon) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington). |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Peel, Hon. W R. W. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hills, J. W | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Renwick, George |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Dublin, S.) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Aciand-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Gordon, J. | Oddy, John James |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI beg to move to leave out the words "thinks fit as respects" ["and if the owner thinks fit, as respects any part of any land"], and insert the words "so requires."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOwing to the procedure adopted it is exceedingly difficult for us to know what is going on. I think it would have been at least for the convenience of the Committee if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when his Amendment was called out of its proper place—[Cries of "Withdraw."] Perhaps hon. Members will permit me to explain. It would have been convenient if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained to us what it is he is doing. It is difficult under these circumstances to find the Amendment on the Paper, then to compare it with the Bill as it stands, and afterwards to find from the printed paper how the clause will read after the Amendment has been made.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think I have taken an exceptional course in not merely publishing the Amendments, but in publishing the clauses as they will appear when the Amendments have been made. I do not think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) were called for at all. The Government have taken every reasonable step they could in order to enlighten the Committee as to the effect of the Amendments. Surely this Amendment is a necessary corollary of the change which provides for the Government undertaking the valuation instead of the private owner. When the private owner was to undertake the responsibility of preparing the valuation he could, if he thought fit, cut up a unit into smaller bits for the purpose of valuation, but now, since the Government are undertaking the valuation, it is for the owner to have parts of the land under separate occupation valued separately if he so requires. This Amendment is necessary in order to carry out the valuation, having regard to the change that has been made.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his explanation, which is perfectly lucid. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is trying by these words to give the owner power to require the Commissioners to value separately things which are in the same occupation. This seems to me to be a suitable occasion for my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford) 1190 to raise a point which he wishes to put before the Committee, namely, whether the owner should not have the power of requiring the Commissioners not merely to separate for the purpose of valuation what is in one occupation, but also to unite in one valuation what may be in several occupations. It is quite clear that if the Bill remains exactly as it is without my hon. Friend's Amendment there will be in many cases unnecessary valuations, imposing much additional trouble and expense on the owners. I think it is reasonable and just that the owners should have the option of requiring one valuation when there are several occupations.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think this is an important point which ought to be decided. The Government propose by this Amendment to give the owner of property power to have a single piece of land divided, and to have four or five separate valuations for a field.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis Amendment proposes to leave out the words "thinks fit, as respects" in order to insert the words "so requires," and, therefore, the valuation which the hon. Member is suggesting could not be provided for here.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI bow to your ruling, but I am sure you will allow me to point out that the words proposed to be introduced entirely alter the whole meaning and effect of the sentence from one end to the other. It is impossible to look at this Amendment in the light of the words to be left out. You have to look at the sentence as it will read after it has been amended by the insertion of the words "so requires." If an owner can have any part of his land separately valued, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow him to have the converse right, namely, to have coupled together pieces of land in separate occupation for the purpose of one valuation?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis is purely a drafting Amendment. It gives the owner of land a perfect right to require a separate valuation of any part of the land which is under separate occupation. What the hon. Member is now proposing would not be in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe point referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is one which might have been raised on an Amendment stand- 1191 ing in my name. The point is an important one, which can be put right at a later stage. The Amendment which I desired to move was that any part of any land which is under separate occupation should be separately valued if the owner so required. That puts on the owner of the land the power to ask the Commissioners to give a separate valuation of any part. But the Committee must remember that for the purpose of this Bill the owner is, in some cases, not the real owner.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat cannot be raised on this Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWe have considered very carefully the point raised by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), and at first I was rather disposed to think that something like what he proposes might be done, but for reasons which I cannot go into now, but which I will explain later on, I cannot take this view.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIt is quite sufficient to understand that you are against it.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEThis Amendment gives power to the owner to make certain requisitions and objections. I do not find in the Bill any provision to cover the ease of an owner, being an infant or otherwise incapable of making objection or making requisition under this Amendment, or taking other steps in the Bill. Will the learned Attorney-General tell the Committee what is supposed to be done in a ease of this kind?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThis case has been met by the definition of owner: "The expression 'owner' means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease (not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph 11 of Section 2 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) for a term of which more than 50 years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner, instead of the person entitled to the freehold."
§ Sir W. ROBSONYes.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWhen will it be necessary for the owner to make this requisition?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat obviously has nothing to do with the Amendment.
§ Question, "That the words 'thinks fit as respects' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'so required' be there inserted."
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think that this does raise a very important issue indeed. I hear hon. Members opposite laughing. Have they made a very close study of this Bill? Have they realised that if we pass these words it follows that if the land is let in allotments of one-eighth or one-quarter of an acre, with perhaps 100 different people on one field, a separate valuation will be required from the Commissioners for every allotment? Do they consider that that is a proposition which ought to be proposed without remonstrance or question? It appears to me to be a most important question from the point of view of the taxpayer a3 to whether a separate valuation should be made. Surely we are here as a business Assembly trying to pass a businesslike measure. Is it business-like or reasonable that we should enact such a proposal? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where the owner so requires."] The hon. Member's interruption is quite a reasonable one, but it shows that he has not appreciated what is being done. If it were only where the owner so required, I entirely admit that there would be no cause for complaint whatever. If the owner requires that every separate piece of land shall be separately valued we could not possibly complain; but each piece of land which is in separate occupation, and if the owner so requires any part of any land shall be separately valued. So the hon. Member will see that the words we are now discussing definitely enact that every piece of land on which there is a separate occupation shall be separately valued. Does the hon. Member think that it is a business proposition where you have got a 30-acre field divided into 30 allotments of one acre each that each of those should be separately valued? It would be a great waste of public money. It is perfectly obvious you have got to have subsequent identification of all these plots. They have got to be put together and identified, and, as I pointed out to the House when we were discussing the Report stage of the valuation Resolution earlier in the evening, it is obviously necessary that there should be a map and plan attached 1193 to every valuation, otherwise it is quite impossible that these plots can be afterwards identified.
Here you have a field containing all these different small plots. You have innumerable sub-divisions of occupation. You have an ordinary pair of cottages on an estate. There are thousands of pairs of cottages all over agricultural England. According to the words which we are now asked to pass you take an ordinary pair of cottages in occupation of two agricultural labourers, and a separate valuation is to be made of each, a separate plan is to be drawn, and a separate document to be prepared and docketed by the valuers for each of this pair of cottages. I am perfectly aware that the figure would be identical, and that two calculations would not necessarily be required, but they have to undergo the expense of a separate valuation, and surely there must be some limitation to the expense which the taxpayer is to be asked to bear. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of them, may still perhaps be under the impression that it matters very little, because the cost is not being placed on the owners of the land. It is not so. It is a burden which is being placed on the taxpayers of the country, and every taxpayer of the country is now being asked to pay for an expensive, cumbrous and impossible machinery by which to value every single separate occupation in the country and every part of such occupation as may be required. I submit that the Government ought to propose something less cumbrous, something more businesslike and less costly, and I hope the Attorney-General may be able to say that this separate valuation will not be required.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIn what we have done we have followed the ordinary practice adopted in rating. At present all hereditaments separately occupied are separately rated, and no other plan is possible. With regard to this tax, we are following precisely what has been the ordinary, invariable, and inevitable course with regard to rates.
§ Colonel ROBERT WILLIAMSI have two or three acres of allotments, and those allotments are not separately rated. There are instances in which a farmer not only gives a garden, but gives a potato ground to his labourer, but that ground is not separately rated. A great many plots of land are separately occupied all over the country, but they are not separately rated.
§ Mr. PRETYMANHas the hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of compounding?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI have heard of it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am in the position of my hon. and gallant Friend in also having some land which is used partly for small holdings and partly for allotments under the district council. That use of land has hitherto been considered by the Government a meritorious purpose to which to apply it, but it has now come under the ban of the present Government. ["Oh."] It has come under the ban of the present Government, and come under that ban for the first time in the present Session. A couple of years ago nothing was more meritorious than to apply land to small holdings or allotments, but now if land is used to get more money by letting it in a different way that is an "economic use" of the land for which apparently no one is to be blamed. In respect of the 20 acres of land let in allotments, I am not assessed separately for each allotment, but I am assessed on the property as a whole. I ask the Attorney-General what advantage he gains by insisting upon a second valuation of each of these properties? Bear in mind that the case of the Government is that if the land is purely agricultural land we are not going to tax it. The moment the land ceases to be used as agricultural land every plot which has been separately valued ceases to have its separate existence. The moment you cut up your field for building purposes part of each plot probably becomes a portion of the road; some plots may disappear wholly in the road, and the remaining portions of plots are thrown together or are cut up in different ways. Of what possible use to anyone is the separate valuation of these plots when the moment the land comes to be used for another purpose that valuation disappears, and there is nothing permanent about it? For the purpose of your Undeveloped Land Tax, and for the purpose of the Increment Tax, you may just as well value it as a whole as value it separately. While the land remains in allotments a separate valuation will be worthless, because all your purposes would be fulfilled equally well by a valuation of the land as a whole. When the land ceases to be used for allotments, that valuation will be equally useful, because each plot, separately valued, would lose its identity in the new laying out of the estate. I hope I 1195 have made my point clear to the Attorney-General. Nothing he has said touches that case, and I should be very much obliged to him if he would tell us what answer he has to give, and why, in such circumstances, he insists on a second valuation?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI really do not think any further answer is required, but I do not wish to appear in any way discourteous. The case put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) was that of a 30-acre field, cut up into the eighth of an acre allotments. There would be really no difficulty in such a case as that. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) says that these allotments will lose their identity when the land came to be used for building purposes. Perhaps they will. But you have got a 30-acre field, divided into eighth of an acre allotments, so that the valuation of the 30 acres would be uniform. It is said, further, that we would lose the purpose of the separate valuation when the land afterwards became devoted to building purposes. You have valued one-eighth of an acre, and that gives you the rate for the whole of the 30 acres. Then if the owner wanted separate valuations you would not have to deal with thirty acres, but smaller portions. The supposition was a thirty-acre field cut into one-eighth of an acre allotments, and if you are going to have separate valuations for all those fractions, I say that is a fallacious question. If the thirty-acre field is uniform one valuation will do. Therefore it does not appear to me a case in which we should depart from the same rule as the rating rule, namely, to make your unit of valuation separate occupation.
§ Mr. G. LOYD COURTHOPEMay I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he has any personal practical experience of allotments?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI have a great deal in legislation concerning rating, and such observation I dare say as the hon. Gentleman has had with his residence in the country, perhaps a little more than mine.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEI do not boast of my experience, but I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman realised the situation with regard to allotments even so well as my small experience enables me that he would have hesitated before he gave the answer he has given. These words, if allowed to remain in the Bill, will, 1196 in my opinion, strike a very serious blow at the cottage occupier in our country village. I hear some hon. Gentleman laugh. I daresay he knows a great many cases, and if he does not I may have to give him a great many of land which has a distinct building value, and which could not only be put into the market profitably, but could be sold at once, because the adjoining plots in many cases have been sold for building purposes, but which is retained in allotments by the owner simply for the benefit of the people living in the village where it is situated. Those allotments are let at nominal rents of a halfpenny or a penny the rood, vary greatly in size, and are occupied by different occupiers. The fact that the paths and hedges are in occupation of the landlord makes a further complication of the question of valuation. I do not contend all allotments are let on those terms, but I think any hon. Member' living in rural districts can bring many to his mind. If any extra burden is placed on such owners it will certainly make them reconsider their decision to retain the land in allotments, and will persuade them to sell the plots to some prospective builder, or, perhaps, run up villas themselves to the benefit of their pockets but to the prejudice of those living in the vicinity. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give the matter further consideration.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWhat is the definition of occupation. Surely if each bit of allotment ground is taken by the year, that constitutes occupation, whatever the terms of the tenure of the whole of the field may be. If the Commissioners find that allotments are held by the year, I submit they will be bound to value those separately, and the option of the owner as to the separation of particular plots will not avail. I would also submit, following on that, it will be necessary for a plan of each occupation to be affixed to the valuation roll, as, otherwise, the boundaries will be confused within a very short time; and when you come to assess the site value you will not know the area on which you are assessing it.
§ Mr. J. W. HILLSIf the owner of land lets land for grazing for one year by auction, who is in occupation of the land, the tenant of the grazing or the owner?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThose are all questions which have to be decided on the individual questions as they arise. It is perfectly impossible to give a definition. 1197 They are given in the ordinary text-books, with which the hon. Member is as familiar as I am. In each case it will have to be decided whether the particular tenure amounts to occupation.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONUnless there is some real reason for not accepting this Amendment, the Government should do so. If the Amendment is accepted, the owner can have his estate valued, as it is now, for Death Duties and other purposes, or he can ask that each separate bit or any bit of his land can be valued separately. The Amendment suggests that the Commissioners should have a discretion, and that it should not be obligatory on them to assess every bit of the estate which is in separate occupation. In a case where rates are compounded for there is no need for separate assessment. [Hon. Members: "Yes."] I use the word "compounding"
§ as to a house occupied as a coachman's or gardeners cottage, or something of that kind. Again, there are certain outlying cottages, and unless there is some object there is no reason for separate valuation. It will add very materially to the expense. Take the case of an estate near London in hands of trustees, an estate of which I happen to be trustee. If this Bill passes it will be one's duty to send down a valuer to value all these separate houses, instead of having them valued, as is done for the purpose of Death Duties, as one estate, and that will add very largely indeed to the expense, both to the Government and to the owner.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 74.
1199| Division No. 456.] | AYES. | [9.40 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Elibank, Master of | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Erskine, David C. | Lambert, George |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Essex, R. W. | Lamont, Norman |
| Armitage, R. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fenwick, Charles | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Ferens, T. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barnard, E. B. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Barnes, G. N. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bell, Richard | Glendinning, R. G | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Glover, Thomas | Maclean, Donald |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Brace, William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Branch, James | Hancock, J. G. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bright, J. A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Brunner, J, F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harwood, George | Massie, J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Middlebrook, William |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haworth, Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hemmerde, Edward George | Morrell, Philip |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Myer, Horatio |
| Cleland, J. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Napier, T. B. |
| Clough, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hodge, John | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Holt, Richard Doming | O'Grady, J |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hooper, A. G. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Horniman, Emslie John | Partington, Oswald |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cox, Harold | Hudson, Walter | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Crooks, William | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crossley, William J. | Idris, T. H. W. | Pointer, J. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Jackson, R. S | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Jardine, Sir J. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jenkins, J. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Radford, G. H. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Jones, William (Carnarvon) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jowett, F. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kekewich, Sir George | Richardson, A. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Laldlaw, Robert | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Summerbell, T. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Rowlands, J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Thomasson, Franklin | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Toulmin, George | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Winfrey, R. |
| Sears, J. E. | Verney, F. W. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Seely, Colonel | Vivian, Henry | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Shackleton, David James | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Walton, Joseph | |
| Snowden, P. | Wardle, George J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | |
| Steadman, W. C. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| NOES | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gordon, J. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renwick, George |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanier, Seville |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Courthope and Mr. J. W. Hills. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Newdegate, F. A. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN called on the Earl of Ronaldshay.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI understood that you had selected an Amendment before that of the Noble Lord.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI find on reconsideration that the question is raised in other parts of the Bill.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI submit that the question raised in other places is not the same as that raised here. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope)—I think I am correctly interpreting his intentions—has put down this later date in order to raise the question that the taxation of the site value should be on its value before it was depreciated by the introduction of the present Budget, and that no man should be taxed on a supposed increment which was merely the partial recovery from the depreciation 1200 produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman will remember that that was urged on previous occasions. We cannot go into it at present.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of my Noble Friend (the Earl of Ronaldshay), to add at the end of Section (1) the words: "Any costs and expenses reasonably incurred by an owner in connection with any valuation or valuations made for the purposes of this Section shall be defrayed by the Commissioners out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose." I think the Amendment explains itself. It is quite obvious that this valuation, though taken over by the Government, must entail a very large expense on the owners of land. There is no proper provision for their recoupment. It is quite true that 1201 in Clause 22 it is proposed that in certain instances costs may be awarded against the Commissioners. That only refers to cases of appeal. But even in those cases there would be very considerable expense, which would still fall upon the owner, and the smaller the owner the greater in proportion the expense will be. A small owner will suddenly be served with a valuation. He will have to consult a lawyer. The lawyer will probably not know very much about it, and will direct him to a valuer. He will have to pay the valuer's fee, and the lawyer's fee, in order to establish the case with which he can go before the Commissioners. Even if he persuades the Commissioners that he is right, and no appeal is necessary, he will be put to a very heavy expense—an expense perhaps heavier than many years payment of the tax in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty, or perhaps more than the whole of the increment value. In those circumstances this Amendment will carry out the intention of the Government that the real cost of the valuation should fall upon the State.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI see no reason why we should pay any expenses—if there are any. There is no reason why the Government should pay them in this case than in the case of the Death Duties. The Government are undertaking the cost of the valuation. The owner no doubt will have to give such particulars as he is able to do. But I do not see that any expense should arise on that, and certainly not more than is usually necessary in the case of the Death Duties. The hon. Gentleman says that the owner will have to employ a lawyer. What does he want with a lawyer?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEFor the same reason that the Government needs an Attorney-General.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThat, I should take it, would be a very creditable reason. But it might also be a desire on the part of the landowner to evade the tax. I do not think that the Government ought to be called upon to pay lawyers for advising landowners how to evade the tax. Even if the principle were right the Amendment is couched in terms so vague that it is impossible to accept it. But the principle is wrong. The Government have gone as far as they should, certainly as far as they reasonably can, in bearing the cost of the valuation. That leaves no necessary or substantial expense on 1202 the subject at all. Such little expense as there is is much the same as he bears in. the case of other land transactions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think that there is much more in the Amendment moved on behalf of my Noble Friend by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield than the Attorney-General is willing to admit. My hon. Friend happened to suggest that the taxpayer might want to consult a lawyer. That filled the Attorney-General with horror. What should any man go to a lawyer for unless he were about to commit an iniquity? It throws a lurid light on the learned Attorney-General's legal experience, and the clients who have previously consulted him. But it may be that the reason the taxpayer wishes to consult, a lawyer is a perfectly legitimate one. The Commissioners may ask for information, not about the estate as a whole, but about the separate allotments, and the taxpayer may wish to know whether he is bound to give the Commissioners such information. He may wish to consult a law-lawyer for a purpose like that, or for a hundred different purposes in this Bill; but, whether he consults a lawyer or not, it is quite evident he will have to consult a valuer or a surveyor in order to check the valuation which is made by the Government. The Attorney-General says there is no reason why a man should pay in these cases more than he would need to pay in a valuation for Death Duty purposes. He forgets for the moment that, the valuation which is required here is something absolutely and totally different from the valuation that is required for the Death Duties. The valuation is not for the purpose of value which exists, but for value which does not exist. If the Commissioners are to have the right to require owners to supply information which it is in their power to give, and which they deem necessary for the purposes of this valuation, then you put the landowner to any amount of expense. You say to him: "We require from you a statement of the land you own, of the different occupations oil that land. We require a statement as to the value of every kind of work, and then we arrive at the value of the land as it is now, and we require from you a statement of what it would cost to divest the land of everything which is on it and every value added to the land by you or your predecessors in title." The landowner may be put to enormous expense in searching out 1203 the past history of this land, which now for the first time becomes necessary. He may be put not only to very great expense, but he may have very great difficulty in getting out all the facts. Of course, in the case of a big estate, which has been managed as one whole, and where all the transactions are recorded in the estate office there would be easily obtainable a perfect record. In that case the cost may be comparatively small, but taking the little men who have bought from the big man's estate plots here and there, how are they to obtain all these particulars without considerable trouble and expense, which will amount to much more than the individual's contribution to the tax. Is it to be said by the Government that they are entitled to put upon thousands of small owners all over the country the expense of supplying all that information? That is the position in which the Attorney-General's reply leaves this matter, and puts the small owner in a perfectly intolerable position.
§ Mr. J. ROWLANDSWould it not be intolerable to put a tax upon the ordinary ratepayers?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman says it would be intolerable to put this expense upon the general taxpayer, though if there is any benefit to be derived from all this expense it goes to the general taxpayer because it goes into the revenues of the country, yet so small is the benefit and so heavy is the expense that the hon. Gentleman says it would be intolerable to make the general taxpayer pay it, and therefore the Government make certain individual taxpayers, who derive no benefit from the tax, but on the contrary suffer by it, pay the expenses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the strength he has given to my argument. I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude upon this question, and that they will not add another to the many intolerable hardships which they have been putting upon the landowners.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThe hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General seems to think that there was no necessity on the part of the owners of land to employ lawyers, but has he considered the demands that are going to be made upon the owners of land under Section (3) of Clause 16 as the Bill stands? Under that section the owner is to be asked by the Commissioners 1204 to supply them with a whole lot of information, and to make returns within a very short period of time. How in the case, for instance, of the ground landlord of a piece of land let upon a building lease of long duration is he to supply all this information? Everyone knows that land is liable to have changed hands several times from the time of the original grant. You suddenly ask an owner in such a case as that to give to the Commissioners a considerable amount of information, to make out an elaborate return on a variety of subjects. The amount of information which owners may be asked to supply, as in the case of the ground landlord I mentioned who has parted with the letting of the land for a considerable period of time before this came into force, will entail very considerable difficulty and expense, and cannot be done without professional or legal advice. I think the Attorney-General can hardly be serious when he suggests that owners can make these returns without employing legal or professional advice. They are going to be subjected to a certain tax on the valuation made by the Commissioners, and he suggests that they would be able to check this valuation and to protect themselves against imposition by the Commissioners without employing legal aid. I think no one seriously believes but that the owner will be put to considerable expense for the purpose of protecting himself.
§ Mr. J. ROWLANDSDuring the whole of these Debates we have heard from the other side of the House a great many arguments about the burden which is going to be put upon the taxpayer now that the Government has taken over the cost of the valuation. One of the arguments used over and over again is that that cost is a heavy burden to be placed upon the taxpayer. Now we have an Amendment upon the Paper which seeks to show that the owner who gets the necessary information required by the Commissioners is going to incur another very heavy financial responsibility, and the object of the Amendment is to transfer that responsibility from the owner to the general taxpayer. The Members of the party opposite by this Amendment suddenly changed their ground. Hitherto their argument was that we should not place upon the general taxpayer this heavy burden of the taxation, but now their argument is that you ought to relieve the owner of whatever little expenses he may incur in supplying information to the 1205 Commissioners. That was the reason why I called out when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was speaking: "You want to place this further cost upon the shoulders of the general taxpayer." I think this Amendment shows a desire on the part of the landowners, now that they are relieved of the cost of valuation, to escape whatever little responsibility there is placed upon them, and I hope the Government will offer a most determined resistance to this Amendment.
Mr. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rowlands) seems to draw a distinction between the owner of a plot of ground and the owner of other kinds of property. Apparently, in the hon. Member's opinion, there is a general taxpayer who should be spared, and there is the man who happens to own a plot of land who ought not to be spared. The principle which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) placed before the Committee is one which I thought was common property on both sides of the House, whatever might be the divergence of our view upon matters connected with taxation. I thought it was commonly understood until I heard the speech of the hon. Member opposite—in fact, I thought it was almost an axiom—that any tax was bad which threw a heavy burden on the taxpayer, in addition to the contributions he had to make to the Treasury. Apparently that is not the view of the hon. Member opposite unless the taxpayer happens to be the general taxpayer. When it is a particular taxpayer who owns property, then it is perfectly right that he should not only pay his own contribution, but he should cheerfully bear a large amount of expenditure which benefits nobody except his expert advisers. We have proved conclusively, and certainly without reply, so far, that these taxes bring very little into the Exchequer compared with the cost to the individual taxpayer. Everybody, the Government included, must acknowledge that that is a great objection to urge against any tax. Even in the view of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the general cost of collecting this tax, if you include the cost of valuation, the net result to the Exchequer will be absolutely insignificant. Now it is proposed, in addition, to throw upon the individual who pays the tax a burden far greater than the tax itself imposes, and the only answer given by the Attorney-General is that, after all, the legal expenses 1206 connected with dealing with a tax of this sort ought to be borne by the taxpayer; and it is contrary to the general usage that it should be borne by the Exchequer. There are circumstances which, as everybody knows, differentiate this form of taxation from any other. There appears to be a profound illusion on the other side of the House that the hardship of these taxes is going to affect the richer class more than the poorer class, but, as a matter of fact, they are going to affect the poorer class more than the richer. The hon. Member who spoke last appears to be under the illusion for which I wish there was some substantial basis, that all the owners of land are rich. Unhappily it is too often the case that they are extremely poor, and I wish it were otherwise. I know there are poor and rich, but the poorer class far exceeds the rich class. Which class does the hon. Member think is going to be hit the most—the rich ones, or the poor ones? Manifestly and obviously, it will be the poor ones. The hon. Members opposite when dealing with these taxes on land generally take the case of estates well equipped with expert advice, estate offices, and an agent very competent to deal with all matters connected with land. In such cases, compared with the magnitude of the estates, the cost of expert advice is relatively insignificant. But what is going to happen with the very small owners who have no expert advice, and have no expert organisation? In such cases, when an opinion is given by competent persons it is charged for, and it will necessarily be charged at a late very high in proportion to the revenues of the person who has co pay the charge. What is to happen in those cases? Manifestly the cost, which this particular form of tax is going to impose upon those who will have to bear the burden, is going to fall in far greater proportion upon the poorer taxpayer than the rich; and it will fall upon them more heavily in proportion co their poverty. The poorer taxpayers will not venture to appeal or to challenge the Government valuation. I think that is extremely probable. I believe that is exactly what will occur, and in that case, of course, he will not go to the expert adviser. He will formally submit, and if the Treasury or the officials of the Inland Revenue, or the new body of officials who are going to deal with this matter, are really lenient and fair, it may be that no substantial injustice will be done at all to 1207 any class, but what guarantee has the poor taxpayer that justice will be done? Under this Bill you are going to give an appeal to the only man who can deal with it; that is, the taxpayer who is rich enough to obtain expert advice to convince him that an appeal has a chance of being given in his favour. But how is the poorer taxpayer and landowner to deal with this question? If he hopes to get any great advantage from this right of appeal then he must have access to expert assistance, and he cannot have expert assistance without paying for it like other people; and if he has to pay for it, it will be out of all proportion to his own income, or to the revenue which the country is going to derive from the taxation of his land. In these circumstances it is only fair to him, as well as to the advantage of the Treasury, that in such cases the owner should be relieved of genuine expenses if they are undergone in order that he may get justice. I think this is a matter which ought to receive consideration from the Government, providing the appeal is not undertaken for the purpose of merely squeezing out better terms. It may be that this Amendment is too wide, and may require qualifications; but the general principle ought to be adopted that if you are going to have an appeal, if you are going to have a Government valuation, you ought at least to give assistance to the class I have alluded to in a legitimate fashion. That seems an obvious corollary to the principle the Government have laid down in the course of the present discussion.
§ Mr. REMNANTThe right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the fact that only expenses which have been reasonably incurred by the owner in connection with these valuations are asked for. The question of whether they are reasonable or not will have to be decided by the Commissioners, in whom the Government profess to have so much confidence.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe Amendment does not say so.
§ Mr. REMNANTWould the right hon. Gentleman tell me who will decide whether they are reasonable if the Commissioners do not?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Gentleman should ask the Mover of the Amendment.
§ Mr. REMNANTThe Bill provides that the decision as to whether costs are to be allowed or not shall be left in the hands of the Commissioners. The common case is where societies or large capitalists buy a large amount of land and divide it up into small plots. The deeds are left in the hands of the solicitors, and one of the conditions is that where they have to be referred to the cost is always payable to the solicitors who have charge of them. Surely it is not too much to ask that in the case of small owners buying small plots out of a large parcel of land they should have reasonable costs incurred by them in reference to these valuations allowed out of the money voted for the purposes of the valuation by Parliament?
§ Mr. TOMKINSONIt appears to me that hon. Members opposite entirely overlook the fact that we have a valuation of land, and especially of agricultural land, already given in the rate-book of every parish.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILNot the capital site value.
§ Mr. TOMKINSONWhen it was a question of the landowners receiving £2,000,000 there was no difficulty whatever in valuing the land; but now, when a small charge is to be imposed, it is impossible for it to be done without enormous expense. I say that for all practical purposes you can, by taking the rate-book, arrive approximately at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I see no difficulty whatever.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAM rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 93.
1211| Division No. 457.] | AYES. | [10.20 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Atherley-Jones, L. | Barran, Sir John Nicholson |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Beauchamp, E. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bell, Richard |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) |
| Armitage, R. | Barnard, E. B. | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barnes, G. N. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Radford, G. H. |
| Brace, William | Hebart, Sir Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Branch, James | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bright, J. A. | Hodge, Johr | Rea, Walter Russell (Gloucester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hooper, A. G. | Richardson, A. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, E.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Horniman, Emslie John | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hudson, Walter | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Idris, T. H. W. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jackson, R. S. | Rowlands, J. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jardine, Sir J. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jenkins, J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Samuel, S M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvon) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Clough, William | Jowett, F. W. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Kekewich, Sir George | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Laidlaw, Robert | Sears, J. E. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lambert, George | Shackleton, David James |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lamont, Norman | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lehmann, R. C. | Snowden, P. |
| Crooks, William | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Steadman, W. C. |
| Crossley, William J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lupton, Arnold | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Summerbell, T. |
| Duckworth, Sir Janies | Lynch, H. B. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Maclean, Donald | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Elibank, Master of | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Erskine, David C. | Macpherson, J. T. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Essex, R. W. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Callum, John M. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Evans, Sir S T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Micking, Major G. | Toulmin, George |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mallet, Charles E. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ferens, T. R. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Verney, F. W. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Vivian, Henry |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Marnham, F. J. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Massie, J | Wardle, George J. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Gill, A. H. | Middlebrook, William | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Watt, Henry A. |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Glover, Thomas | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Worrell, Philip | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wiles, Thomas B. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Myer, Horatio | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Napier, T. B | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merion[...]) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Grady, J. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Harwood, George | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Winfrey, R. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pointer, J. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Henry, Charles S. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Carlile, E. Hildred | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cave, George | Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Doughty, Sir George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers- |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Clive, Percy Archer | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Clyde, J. Avon | Fell, Arthur |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Foster, P. S. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Courthope, G. Loyd | Gardner, Ernest |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Gordon, J. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Gretton, John | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Salter, Arthur Claveil |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanier, Beville |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Morpeth, Viscount | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Starkey, John R. |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Newdegate, F. A. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Oddy, John James | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Parkes, Ebenezer | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Hills, J. W. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Percy, Earl | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Kerry, Earl of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Younger, George |
| Keswick, William | Pretyman, E. G. | |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| King, Sir Henry (Seymour (Hull) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Renwick, George | |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
§ Question put, "That those words be inserted."
1212§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 231.
1213| Division No. 458.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gordon, J. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gretton, John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley W. W. | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peat |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Renton, Leslie |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Renwick, George |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hills, J. W. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Claveil |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Keswick, William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George G. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mason, James F (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Moroeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Foster, P. S. | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Oddy, John James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl of Ronaldshay and Captain Clive. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bell, Richard | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Armitage, R. | Bowerman, C. W. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Brace, William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Branch, James | Cleland, J. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bright, J. A. | Clough, William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brooke, Stopford | Clynes, J. R. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Bryce, J. Annan | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) |
| Barran, Sir John (Hawick B.) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cooper, G. J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Byles, William Pollard | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Crooks, William | Jowett, F. W. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Kekewich, Sir George | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Crossley, William J. | Laidlaw, Robert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lambert, George | Rowlands, J. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lamont, Norman | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lehmann, R. C. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lewis, John Herbert | Schwann, c. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lupton, Arnold | Sears, J. E. |
| Essex, R. W. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Seely, Colonel |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lynch, H. B. | Shackleton, David James |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Fenwick, Charles | Maclean, Donald | Snowden, P. |
| Ferens, T. R | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Fergusson, R. C. Munro | Macpherson, J. T. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | M'Callum, John M. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Micking, Major G. | Summerbell, T. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon, Herbert John | Mallet, Charles E. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Clover, Thomas | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marnham, F. J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Massie, J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Middlebrook, William | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tomkinson, James |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Toulmin, George |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morrell, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Verney, F. W. |
| Harwood, George | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Myer, Horatio | Vivian, Henry |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Napier, T. B. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wardle, George J. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Grady, J. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Henry, Charles S. | Parker, James (Halifax) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Partington, Oswald | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hodge, John | Pointer, J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williams, Sir Osmond |
| Hooper, A. G. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rees, J. D. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Jackson, R. S. | Richardson, A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Jenkins, J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI beg to move to leave out Section (2). I imagine, after the announcement which was made at the beginning of business to-day, that the Government desire the whole of the mineral clauses to be treated together. It is clear that at the present time we are not in a position to discuss this section. We have been asked to postpone Clause 15, and we know very well that that clause cannot come up again in the form in which it was originally drafted. It deals with an entirely different duty from the one now proposed in 1214 connection with royalties. Many of the expressions in it refer to the old Clause 12, which is now departed from. If we now begin to provide for a valuation before we know what the valuation is to be upon or what the machinery is to be, it would be a case of putting the cart before the horse, and therefore I hope the Government will assent to leave out Section (2). But apart from that, I think it is very desirable to have a statement as to the reason why the Government have placed this section in the clause. We hear the argument that was used by 1215 the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, that it might be valuable in connection with one particular section of the mineral royalties clause. The fact is that so far as the new Royalties Duties are concerned this valuation is not wanted at all. In conection with the Reversion Duty it would be no use making the valuation now, because at the end of the lease a large amount of minerals would have been got out, and the position would be entirely different. With regard to undeveloped land, we know that minerals are excluded. Therefore it is only possible in cases of Increment Duty that this valuation can be of use. When we examine this particular section we see that where the minerals are not being worked or are not comprised in the mining lease this does not apply. In the case of minerals being worked, everybody knows that the actual surface of the land is seriously depreciated, and where the land is subject to a mining lease, undoubtedly the surface during those years would be deteriorated in price, and it is very improbable that there would be any increment upon it. Therefore it would require a great deal more justification than we have heard for the suggestion that there should be a separate valuation wherever land comprises minerals, that is to say, apparently wherever there is a separate occupation of land down to the small allotments, of which we have heard this evening, there is yet to be a separate valuation of minerals in cases where the land happens to be included in a mining lease or minerals are being worked in the neighbourhood. The whole section is very obscure, and we should have a very much clearer explanation than we have had on the subject. I do not quite understand how to apply the present condition of things, and it is still harder to understand it in reference to the position of Clause 15, and our inability to discover the mind of the Government in connection with that clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI feel there is a good deal of reason in the contention of the hon. Gentleman, and I would rather like to ask the ruling of the Chairman on a point of order. If the Government assented to the omission of Section (2) at this stage, would they be precluded from moving the same proposal in the form of a clause or by way of addition to a clause, which is on the Paper later? If the Government could move substantially the 1216 same provision in another form, I agree that it would be convenient to omit the section now, and discuss the whole of the mineral clauses together.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)The suggestion I would like to make is this—I see the difficulty—whether it would not be better to leave the section in here; but if another section or new clause is moved in a somewhat different form dealing with the whole question, then when we deal with the new clause this could be struck out on Report. That would be the ordinary way of dealing with the matter. If the clause is really substantially similar, the easier way would be to leave this section in and then strike it out on Report.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe clause, as amended by the Government, is in a different form. If Section (2) were omitted I submit that there would be nothing to prevent the Government Later on from moving that clause in the new form which we propose it should take.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the new clause to be moved later on is substantially different in form, then I think that Sub-section (2) may safely go now.
Mr. BALFOURThis is an example of putting very new wine into a very old bottle. You are moving an entirely new clause in the place of an old one. It is a course attended with disadvantages, but as there are some advantages I do not object.
§ Question, "That the word 'where' stand part of the section," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert, after Section (3), the words, "Any owner of land and any person receiving rent in respect of any land shall, on being required by notice from the Commissioners, furnish to the Commissioners a return containing such particulars as the Commissioners may require as to the rent received by him, and any other information which the Commissioners may require, and which it is in his power to give, and."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved to leave out of the proposed Amendment the words, "and any other information which the Commissioners may require."
§ I move this for the purpose of obtaining some information from the Government about this power, which, whatever may be said in favour of it, is entirely unprecedented, and has never been entrusted to 1217 any body of Commissioners under any Act hitherto passed by the House of Commons. That is, I am aware, a somewhat sweeping statement, but I can justify it. I do not pretend to be familiar with valuation in England, but I can refer to Scottish Valuation Acts, and point out exactly where the difference comes in under these new powers entrusted to the Commissioners and their existing powers. The great characteristic of the powers hitherto given has always been that the power has been defined very specifically within limits. In Scotland at present, under the Valuation Act of 1854, there are no such general permissive powers. What happens is that it says it shall be lawful for the assessor to call upon a number of different persons to make a return. The return is to contain a written statement of the yearly rent or value, and all the other particulars required by this Act, and then goes on to specify all the particulars required. The proposal of the Government is entirely different. The body of Commissioners are not to ask for particulars required by the Act or for any specified information at all. They are to ask for any other information which they may choose to require. I really think that before the House of Commons is asked to pass a form of words giving this power to any body of persons, we ought to have an idea of what the Government mean by it. What do they mean the Commissioners are entitled to do? The Commissioners would be entitled by these words to ask for almost anything, for any estimates the owner may have had before him, any offers to buy, any letters, any correspondence relating to the land which may have ever passed. They may be empowered to ask for any cheques sent in regard to it, or the production of a bankbook, and certainly for memoranda or jottings. I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government that such power should be entrusted to irresponsible hands, such as a body of Commissioners. If that is the intention of the Government it is certainly a novel proposal, and if it is it will certainly subject the people of this country to what I think Adam Smith once, in a moment of desperation, called "the frequent and odious examination of the tax-gatherer." I do not believe the Government, when they come to think it over, can think that any such imposition as that should take place, but if it is their intention, then all I can say is that I shall resist it as strongly as I can. I hope we shall have some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of those words.
1218§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think this is quite as alarming as the hon. Member suggests. It is very difficult to give a catalogue of all the items of information which will be serviceable to the Commissioners in the preparation of their valuation, and which the owner can very well give them without any trouble. For instance, the area is one thing, and whether it is arable land or whether it is pasture; how much of it is woodland—that is the kind of information. And then there is another class of information which he can give which would be very valuable when you come to considering certain duties—whether he bought the land at a certain period, and what the purchase money was. You cannot give an exhaustive catalogue, but that kind of information would be very valuable, and should be given. They cannot, however, demand a valuation from the owner. I do not think you can do better than embody general words of this character, enabling the Commissioners to ask for information of the kind I have described.
§ Earl WINTERTONI am assured, on legal authority, that these words might include particulars of valuation, and many items of information which have no reference whatever to the question of valuation. For instance, an owner might have borrowed money on his land, or there might be shooting arrangements between landlord and tenant, and under this proposal the valuers would be able to demand information concerning these matters. We ought to have the opinion of the law officers as to the effect of the words. I am assured that they have a very wide meaning, and that their scope is enlarged by the preceding words, which would cover all the matters referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They can only lead to unnecessary trouble and vexation, and those of us who have had experience of the inquisitorial methods of the Income Tax Commissioners and other bodies of public servants are not inclined to allow the valuers more power than is absolutely necessary.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe Chancellor of the Exchequer is answering the very obvious objection that there is to this very wide proposal in the Bill stated that it was impossible to schedule all the information that would be required. But surely there are precedents already for it being done. In the Income Tax Act of 1842 this very point is dealt with in Sections 190 1219 and 52. In the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act a similar provision is applied, with this and other important difference, that there is a further qualification, "All other particulars required by this Act." I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is objectionable to put in such a very wide provision as this. "Any other information which the Commissioners may require"! So wide is that that the Chancellor himself stated that those particulars might be so numerous that he did not even feel capable of enumerating them. There must be some limit to what is required from the owners. There is not even the limit that they may possess the information.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE"And which it is in his power to give."
§ Mr. PRETYMANI beg pardon. It does cover the point. Even so, the thing is still very difficult. Could he not be given some idea beforehand of the information he will have to supply? In the absence of the schedule I should like to know the heads of the information.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEInformation material to the valuation.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI was going to suggest that we might omit the words suggested, and say "information required by this Act." That information should be put in the schedule. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] Would the Chancellor follow the precedent of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act? That seems to me to be a definite thing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not quite like to take the responsibility of enumerating all the particulars. When the machinery of the Act comes to be put into operation we may find that some very material item has been omitted. I think I met the hon. Member by saying that the information must be material to the valuation. If the Commissioners demand anything which is not material, such as that indicated by the hon. Member in moving the Amendment, that kind of information would not be material.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIf the owner borrowed money and his deeds were with the Bank, is that information to be given? Is he to be asked when he bought the property and what he paid for it?
Mr. BALFOURI should imagine that the kind of questions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would regard as legitimate would be questions with regard to the actual condition of the land. For instance, I do not think it would be regarded as legitimate for the Commissioners to ask a man what he gave for the land many years ago, or whether the owner had any information as to the price at which land in the neighbourhood was sold at the time. The right hon. Gentleman would not regard it as legitimate for the Commissioners to ask the sort of questions suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford) as to the owner's bank book or his security. I think I am interpreting the Government's intention correctly when I say the sort of information they want the owner of the land to give is information about the character of the land itself; what it actually is, whether it is pasture or arable. I cannot draft a Bill on my legs, but I think that is the kind of information that is required.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf I may say so, I think the right hon. Gentleman is on very right lines, but I am not sure that the words "any information as to the character of the land" are sufficient. The purchase-money is undoubtedly relevant where the land is bought within twenty years on a higher price. There ought to be a record of that. It is the kind of information you want for the benefit of the owner himself. We put in a sub-clause for the protection of the mortgagee where he advanced money; the property has gone down, and the Commissioners ought to know what the position is from that point of view. If they look at the register they will see what it sold for, and they will see there is no increment in that case. I think it would be desirable to have limiting words, and if the Commissioners will accept the undertaking of the Government to consider the question of limitation we will do so. I think there must be some general words. There may be matters which we cannot for the moment foresee. If the hon. Member could see his way to withdraw this Amendment I would undertake to consider whether some limitation rather in the direction suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but perhaps a little more comprehensive could not be adopted, because what has been suggested would not cover purchase money and the 1221 mortgagees who have to be protected. There may be other items of that character which we ought to consider.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think we should take a definite view of this clause. The question is to whom would this return and information be open? If the Commissioners alone had access to the information, then I do not think there would be so much objection to giving the most ample particulars. On the other hand, if, after the information has been supplied, the public and other persons can get access, it would materially alter one's view as to the extent to which this information ought to be given.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think there ought to be an official note with regard to the purchase transactions within the twenty years. The information which it is necessary to give is the history of the title which bears upon the increment value. Taking the information generally it ought to be confidential to the Commissioners.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThere are instances in foreign countries where it is invariably the practice to put in fictitious amounts in regard to the purchase, because they do not want everybody to know their business.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere are reasons why the public should have access to a good deal of this information, because there will be the question of deduction and the deductions made by previous owners of a considerable property which may be affected by an enormous number of previous owners. There will have to be some access by one person to another person's figures. With regard to purchases within 20 years I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to say that there will have to be a register of all purchases within the twenty years, but only of those that have a higher value than the present. That would be in the interest of the owner. If the owner chooses to neglect his opportunity of stating the figure at which he purchases the loss will be upon him. The owner requires to keep the original site value recorded for the purposes of the Increment Value Duty, and it will be in his interest to establish that. If he does not choose to establish that fact there is no object in the State compelling him to do so. He has the right to do it, anyhow, under a previous clause. I have a very strong 1222 desire to support the broad distinction suggested by my right hon. Friend. It is very objectionable to a man to have to give the figures at which he bought land or sold a piece, or figures of mortgage, and I do not think he should be asked to give that kind of information; but he might very properly be asked questions with regard to the character of his land and the uses to which it is put, and the rent he receives. He ought only to be entitled to give those figures where he desires to do so in his own interest, and he certainly ought not to be compelled to do so where he considers it would be against his interest. It appears to me that that is a broad distinction which could be drawn, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it as the principle of an Amendment to be made.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThese particulars are already given in Scotland and London, so they are not such a secret.
§ Mr. YOUNGEROnly in the register of title in Scotland.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am referring to the register of title. All these particulars have been given both in London and Scotland, and therefore I cannot conceive that there will be all these objections when it assists the Commissioners to arrive at a proper valuation. I am afraid I could not go beyond the general intimation I have given to the Committee.
§ Lord R. CECILThe question of the trouble and money which you require the landowner to take and expend in connection with giving this information bears not so much on these words as on those which immediately follow the words "and which it is in his power to give." It would greatly affect my opinion if I knew what meaning the Government attach to those words. Of course, in their literal signification, they mean information which by any exertion the owner can procure, but I do not think that can be the intention, because they are evidently limiting words. It may be the Attorney-General can tell us—that those words have a well-defined meaning which the Government intend them to bear, and that the owner is only bound to give information actually in his possession.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has called my attention to the fact that we are not really discussing the Amendment before the Committee. I imagined it 1223 to be to the general convenience of the Committee to discuss it in this way, and that is why I allowed the Debate to cover the other points as well.
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNERI want to ask the Government to take some precautions against allowing owners to give these particulars when they choose, and to leave them out in other cases. They ought to be made in every case, and what questions are asked ought to be asked universally.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)The owner would not, under the words used here, be under any kind of compulsion or obligation to go to any expense in order to give particulars with reference to his land. Rent is mentioned as an illustration of the kind of particular required, and the words go on to suggest any other information of the same general character which the Commissioners may require, and which it is within his power to give. But he is not bound to incur any expense.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSFor what purposes is this information required? If it is required to give a lead to the valuer as to the character and use of the land, I think it would be highly improper, it should mention the price. If you send a valuer to value a piece of land for the purpose of lending money on mortgage it is not customary to tell him anything about the price paid for it that year or the year before, because he would more or less value around that price. I suggest that the price should not be included in these particulars, but that they should refer merely to the character and use of the land in order that the valuer may make his valuation without any preconceived notions, based on prices recently paid—which may give a totally incorrect idea of the value and have no reference to the actual value.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONWe are told by the Attorney-General that the words. "in his power to give" limit the information that is to be asked for to that which can be given without running to any expense. If that is so, I, for one, am satisfied.
Mr. BALFOURI do not think it is of any advantage to argue the point. The Government has declared its intention to reconsider the situation in view of the arguments brought forward, and to 1224 Amend the Bill accordingly. But, as far as we are concerned, we shall not be content with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, viz., the introduction of the word "material." I do not think that would suffice. It would not carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted is the one to which he agreed. I think that the words probably require some reflection, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that he will introduce a modification of the provision on Report, which carries out the general policy which he shares with us, as I understand him, I do not know that anything will be gained by asking the Committee to divide. If I rightly interpret the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree, I think some other words are needed, but I would rather that this matter were left over to the Report stage. I am not quite prepared with words at the present moment, but I do promise to move words which will limit the general character of the clause.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIs not my Amendment to the Amendment after the word "give" ["and which it is in his power to give"] to insert "without incurring expense in procuring such information," to be moved?
§ The CHAIRMANThe power of selection applies to the Amendments to the Amendments, as well as to the Amendments themselves, and that is why I have allowed some latitude in discussion.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Section (3) after "land" ["If any owner of land"] to insert the words, "or person receiving any rent in respect of the land."
§ The CHAIRMANNo; because we have put words in before, leaving the section to stand.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment I call upon is that of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs.
§ Mr. YOUNGER moved in Section (3) to leave out the word "thirty" ["not being less than thirty days"] and to insert the word "sixty."
§ It may be that the situation is somewhat changed by the alteration of the clause, but I think thirty days is a ridiculously short time to call upon an owner to make a return. I think it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to extend the time a little beyond thirty days, and my Amendment as it stood on the Paper proposed three months or ninety days, but I think probably a sufficient number would be sixty days. Under no circumstances should anyone be called upon to give the information in thirty days, take any estate which you can name.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI hope the hon. Member will realise that there is a complete change in the appearance of this figure upon the clause. It was thirty days for a valuation by the owner, but now it is thirty days in which to supply certain information. I can quite understand that the time originally in some cases would be inadequate, but he would be able to give the information required in the time. He has only to give information in regard it may be to 50 or 10 acres of land. He is to give information as to their area, their character, and the rent—information he can give in 48 hours without the slightest difficulty. If he is given 60 days he will take 60 days. It is very desirable that the Commissioners should get on with their valuation and should get the information as quickly as possible. This is a minimum of 30 days and not a maximum. If the hon. Member insists upon giving a minimum of 60 days they cannot proceed for 60 days with the valuation.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI think under the Scotch Valuation Act you get 21 days merely to return your rental. In cases of small properties probably 30 days would be enough, but I am afraid the valuers would not be able to exercise a discriminating power. You have very often groups of estates managed by one particular agent who is very busily employed.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat would happen in a case of that kind? Supposing the owner of a large estate is called upon 1226 to make a return in 30 days. Let us assume the Commissioners are as reasonable as any human beings could possibly be. They prosecute and have to recover the penalty in the High Court. Can he believe that Judges in conditions of that kind would enforce the penalty because in 30 days the owner of a large estate has not supplied the information?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made in Section (3) to leave out the word "return" ["specified in the return"], and to insert the words, "notice requiring a return."—[Mr. Lloyd-George].
§ Mr. G. D. FABER (York) moved to leave out the words "under Section fifty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and that section shall apply accordingly," and to insert instead thereof the words "of forty shillings."
§ Under the scheme of the Bill the valuation is to be made by the Government, and the owner need do nothing unless he likes. As a matter of fact, of course, in every case he will be obliged to do something to save his own skin. The Commissioners are to require the owners to give certain information, and if the owners do not give it they are to be liable to a penalty. I have taken the trouble to look at the Income Tax Act of 1842, and I find that Clause 55 states that "every such person shall forfeit any sum not exceeding £20, and treble the duty which such person ought to be charged by virtue of this Act." We must imagine that these words are incorporated in this clause. I think we are entitled to some elucidation of this matter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a clause at the end which says "or if prosecuted in His Majesty's Court shall forfeit the sum of £50." This Bill says that the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court, and therefore the question arises whether the penalty of £50 referred to in the Income Tax Act of 1842 is the sum to be exacted or whether it will be £20 and treble the duty.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member has expressed surprise at the amount of the penalty, but it is the ordinary penalty in similar cases. Clause 55 of the Income Tax Act of 1842 refers to the penalty, but before the penalty can be incurred there must be refusal or neglect on the part of the taxpayer to give the information within the time limit. If he commits that 1227 offence, he is liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 and treble the duty. That is the maximum penalty. Proceedings are not infrequently taken for delay in giving information, but it is very seldom that the full penalty is imposed. In a strong case, where the refusal to give the information is on account of some improper motive, such as an intention to evade the tax, I think the penalty of £20 and three times the amount of the tax is not at all excessive.
Mr. BALFOURI would point out the absurdity of having penalties which are quite different according to whether there is a tax or there is not a tax. Most of the land which is going to be valued under this clause will pay no tax at all, and therefore when you impose a fine of three times the tax you incur three times nothing. Therefore the maximum penalty is £20 in cases where there is no tax. It seems to me a very absurd distinction if you take the case which is exactly analogous, that of a man who has no income and is assessed for Income Tax by the Commissioners. Then consider what information is required under this section, even as it is to be modified by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I declare I do not know how the information as to site value is to be given. It is perfectly easy for an owner of land to say what the rent is, and if he bought it within 20 years, and he can say what he gave for it. But how is he to say what the site value of the land is when stripped of certain things? It is a complicated problem for the unfortunate landowner, and quite different in magnitude and in point of difficulty for any problem of any taxpayer who is afterwards asked to contribute to the Exchequer. Everybody knows, or ought to know, what his annual income is. There is no difficulty in making out what the average of your triennial income is. It is merely a question of keeping your accounts and sending in the requisite information required. But nobody has suggested that it is a simple and easy operation to send in the information required under this Bill. I venture to suggest that great caution should be adopted by the Government in putting this burden on people who are asked to take a leading part in making calculations of such inherent difficulty as those imposed upon the taxpayer under the past proposal.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman is arguing against the clause 1228 in its original form. He is assuming that there is a penalty inflicted because the owner does not give the, original site value and all these complicated calculations. This is purely for neglecting to supply information which it is within his power to give. It is for wilful negligence.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWilful negligence or wilful delay.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is not a complicated calculation. It is exactly the same as with regard to Income Tax. You ask for information with regard to a man's income. He does not merely state that he has no income above £160. He has got to give particulars of his income and such particulars as are indicated. As everyone knows it is a very elaborate document. I do not think that there is a man in this House who has ever read it, and I never met anyone outside who ever read it. It is a most complicated document, and if this document were as complicated as that I quite agree that it would be difficult. But here it is a question of particulars of rent, area, amount of arable land, woodland, and everything of that kind. If he neglects to supply that information then they can go to the High Court. The words of the Income Tax Act might be adopted, but I do not think that should be done at this stage. It really amounts to the same thing, however.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere are three duties levied. Does it cover the three duties to which a man may be liable?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThere are two alternatives, and I omitted to read the second. In the case of proceedings under the Income Tax Act before the Commissioners the penalty is £20. Before the High Court the penalty is £50.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI have very little objection to this if I were satisfied that the amount of the penalty rested in the discretion of the High Court or the inferior Court. I should be very glad to have the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether the amount of the penalty is in the discretion of the Court. I am not sure that the Commissioners do not impose such a fine as they think fit and then proceed upon it. That being so, I am not certain that the Court has any dispensing power, except to give judgment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am almost certain—I am subject to correction—that the High Court has in all cases power to vary the penalty. Indeed, cases before the 1229 High Court are usually brought to decide questions of principle or law, and in almost all cases, after the declaration of the Court has been obtained, the penalties are not asked for.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe Income Tax Act does not quite affect this point. In the first place, a farmer owning thirty or forty acres, and who does not come under the Income Tax Act, might be asked to make a return in regard to his land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that it is a complicated return, though not so complicated as that under the Income Tax Act. This farmer with thirty or forty acres is to be suddenly confronted with a demand to fill up this return, which is admittedly somewhat complicated, and he has to comply with the demand within thirty days. He is unable to make it out, and is probably fined in the sum of £20, but the Attorney-General informs us the High Court may mitigate the penalty, but he is not sure. It is a most important point, which may affect a number of small holders, and probably some of them illiterate. I do not think you ought to have this drastic penalty inserted.
§ Mr. F. W. LAMBTONIn Clause 51 the person who does not make a return as to the Super-tax is to be liable to a penalty of £50, and there is no mention of the Income Tax Act of 1842. There is no consistency in adhering in this clause to that Act.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI understand that the High Court has an inherent power to mitigate the penalty, and that that view is accepted by legal gentlemen on both sides of the House.
§ Lord R. CECILI do not understand why the Government have this reference to the Income Tax Act of 1842, as what is required under this clause is a really different thing. May I ask why it is necessary to have the same penalty now as it was originally? Originally, this was on a refusal to give a valuation, while how you want information which may or may not be of particular importance, but you still insist on the same penalty. That, surely, is not a reasonable attitude. I venture to ask the Chancellor does he not see his way to put in a penalty?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGETo meet the views of the Opposition I am quite willing to accept the suggestion and to insert 1230 the words "not exceeding £50." Section 55 of the Income Tax Act must remain, because otherwise you must put in elaborate machinery. Those are put in to have that machinery at hand.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThere is to be a return with regard to each separate holding. Supposing a man has tenants who fail to give the information; is he then to be liable for twenty times £50 or a £1,000?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I say why I object to this penalty on the Income Tax basis? The way it is worked is this: Somerset House come down on the unfortunate man and say, "You are in default. The penalty for not sending in a return is £20 plus three times the duty—"
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Attorney-General has already pointed out that the provision with regard to three times the duty does not apply here. ["Why not?"] The suggestion is that we should insert "not exceeding" £50, and I am prepared to accede to that.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURAnd drop the duty?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAnd drop the duty; making it perfectly clear that we are not demanding three times the duty, and that the penalty is not to exceed £50.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI wish the right hon. Gentleman would put in a simple penalty without reference to £50. What happens at present is that Somerset House come down on the taxpayer and say, "You are liable to a penalty of £50. If we sue fox the whole penalty you will have to pay the costs; but the Commissioners will let you off if you pay £25 down." That is the common every-day practice of Somerset House. If the power is put into the hands of the Commissioners in regard to every holder of a small plot of land who does not understand law, or know the meaning of the Income Tax Act, the unfortunate man will surrender at once and pay the sum demanded. It is too heavy a penalty for not sending in the necessary return. If it were the return required in the original Bill it would be a different matter. There it was the fundamental basis of the tax; here it is nothing of the kind. Although in the present case only certain details are asked for, yet the same penalty is being imposed as though the information demanded were the return upon which the taxation was to be based. A moderate penalty would be much fairer.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
1232§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 89.
1233| Division No. 459.] | AYES. | [11.59 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Pointer, J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hancock, J. G. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Armitage, R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Radford, G. H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harwood, George | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Helme, Norval Watson | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Richardson, A. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Henry, Charles S. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Brace, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Branch, James | Hodge, John | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Rowlands, J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hooper, A. G. | Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Horniman, Emsile John | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hudson, Walter | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jackson, R. S. | Seely, Colonel |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jardine, Sir J. | Shackleton, David James |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jenkins, J. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jowett, F. W. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, George | Summerbell, T. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lamont, Norman | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lehmann, R. C. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lupton, Arnold | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Crooks, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tomkinson, James |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Toulmin, George |
| Crossley, William J. | Maclean, Donald | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macpherson, J. T. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | M'Micking, Major G. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Mallet, Charles E. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Marnham, F. J. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Erskine, David C. | Massie, J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Essex, R. W. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Middlebrook, William | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth). |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Myer, Horatio | Winfrey, R. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Norman, Sir Henry | |
| Gill, A. H. | O'Grady, J. | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Glover, Thomas | Partington, Oswald | |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Banner, John S. Harmood- | Cave, George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Butcher, Samuel Henry | Clive, Percy Archer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Carlile, E. Hildred | Clyde, J. Avon |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham). |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Renwick, George |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Foster, P. S. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanier, Beville |
| Gordon, J. | Morpeth, Viscount | Starkey, John R. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Newdegate, F. A. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Parkes, Ebenezer | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Hills, J. W. | Percy, Earl | Winterton, Earl |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pretyman, E. G. | Younger, George |
| Hunt, Rowland | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George D. Faber and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Kerry, Earl of | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| Keswick, William | Renton, Leslie |
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON moved to omit from Section (3) the words, "but the penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court."
§ I move this Amendment not because I quarrel with the object for which these words were put in, but because I think it would be an extreme hardship in the particular circumstances of this Bill that a man who omitted to give the information required should be saddled with an action in the High Courts. It seems to me that the penalties we have just decided upon are entirely out of proportion to any offence that can be committed under this section. If the man does not give the information he does not stop the valuation; it goes on just the same, and no object of the Legislature is thwarted, although the valuation may be made more inconvenient, still you inflict the same penalty as under the Income Tax. That seems to me to be an extremely severe penalty. You subject a man to an action in the High Court which makes him liable to a penalty of £50. The Courts, I fancy, have no power to remit any portion of that fine; that may be done by the Commissioners. If the Attorney-General will look at the section he will see that there is a distinction drawn between the penalty of £20 and £50. In the one case it says "not exceeding £20," and in the other "a penalty of £50." If a man does come within this penalty what is to be imposed is a penalty of £50. Under this section that will be a very great hardship. I have often thought the law as it stands to-day in regard to the recovery of these penalties is a very great hardship. What happens is that while 1234 the subject is being litigated for a small amount comparatively of £50 you are compelled to have all the procedure of an information laid by the Attorney-General in the High Court, with all its attendant expenses, which are recoverable against the subject who has to pay the £50. If the subject fails in his defence, not only has he to pay the £50, but he has also to pay expenses, which would never be less than £300 or £400. Why should a penalty of this kind be recoverable by this long procedure in the High Court?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans)There is the county court.
§ Sir E. CARSONYes, but the Attorney-General says there is no county court procedure in this case. You ought to proceed with the least possible cost to the subject. In addition to that I wish to note that whilst you cannot take proceedings in the county court, the words of the section under the Income Tax Acts are not the words used here. The words of the Income Tax Acts are "in any of His Majesty's Courts." Whether that includes the county court or not I am not prepared to say, but at any rate the words are different. My short point is that, having provided for this penalty, in case proceedings are taken, the subject ought not to be put to expenses of more than a few pounds, and not hundreds of pounds, as is the case under this section.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe words which it is now proposed to omit are really inserted in the interests of the taxpayer. If those words were not there, then, under the procedure of the Income Tax 1235 Acts, the taxpayer in default might be taken before the Commissioners. It would not by any means be agreeable for the defaulting taxpayer to be brought before the Commissioners, who are really making the complaint against him, and who have the power to impose a penalty not exceeding £20 and treble the duty. I should have said that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have objected both to the tribunal and the penalty, and in order that the taxpayer may have a proper tribunal and a smaller penalty we have inserted the words: "The action must be brought against him in the High Court." It is quite true that the Court cannot mitigate the penalty, but the Commissioners can. They need not ask for the full penalty. If they choose they can ask for a less penalty. The procedure in the High Court is not so costly as the right hon. Gentleman makes out. If there is a bonâ fide defence, the penalty will not be pressed for at all. The Attorney-General is not sent to enforce penalties against persons obviously and wilfully at fault; he is only called in where there is some point of law to be fought out. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would, on the whole, be well advised to keep in the words. It is better you should have the High Court as the tribunal which inflicts the penalty rather than the Commissioners. Although the penalty is fixed, the Commissioners have the power to ask for less, according to the circumstances of the case.
§ Sir E. CARSONI quite agree it is necessary to have some words unless you have the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. The jurisdiction of the Commissioners is subject to certain rights, because they have power to extend the time. They have, for instance, in the case of agents, power to extend the time, and to even call for the particulars after they have taken proceedings. I do not therefore think it is altogether in favour of the subject to leave the matter out. Assuming that these words are put in for the benefit of the subject, I do not think the Attorney-General has made any answer to the question of the expense of the High Court. It is quite true if there is no defence the cost may not be very heavy, but a man may perfectly bonâ fide fight an action although he may be defeated, and in the case the subject is put to enormous cost in litigating what he believes to be his right. There is something more than 1236 that. If the Commissioners say to a man, "You have incurred a penalty of £30, or say £50," it is far cheaper for that man to pay than to have it litigated in the High Court. Many a man has paid rather than have litigation in the High Court. Therefore I say that hardship remains. You are really taking away the right of litigation from the subject by keeping this matter in the High Court. I suggest to the Attorney-General to add "or the County Court" after the words "can only be recoverable in the High Court." I will be satisfied if he does that. I cannot conceive that the Crown, in small cases, would insist on proceedings in the High Court unless some very important point was involved. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree to the insertion of the words "or the County Court," I am quite willing to withdraw my opposition.
§ Sir W. ROBSONA large number of informations are issued by the Attorney-General, but the number which come into the High Court is infinitesimal. The people affected either give the particulars wanted or they pay up the arrears of duty, and that is how they avoid the penalty of £50. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) says a man would pay £50 rather than go into the High Court, but if he thinks he has a good defence, and, in the opinion of the Treasury, it is a bonâ fide defence, no penalty is imposed. In the interests of the taxpayer, I think it would be far better to allow the information to be issued in the High Court—in fact, an Attorney-General's information cannot be laid in a county court. It is a sufficient warning to the taxpayer that he had better pay or give the particulars unless he thinks he has a good case for refusing them. If, in his opinion, he has a good case, the most suitable tribunal to decide the point is surely the High Court.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI regret that this discussion has taken place at an hour at which notice cannot be taken of it in the country. It is a matter which really concerns the less well-to-do. So far as the rich are concerned we might leave the Bill as it stands. There is no objection on their part to the procedure of the High Court. They can protect themselves, and they understand the risk they run. But when you have to deal with poor men the case is very different. Look at the clause and consider how it will operate in practice. I regard it as oppressive in the highest degree. Many men who own small plots 1237 of land throughout the country are without education. There are hundreds of thousands of men who the moment this Bill becomes law will receive a document which they will not understand—a document asking for information about their land, and the immense probability is that they will put it aside and forget all about it. Then, at the end of thirty days, they will receive notice that unless they pay £50 they are going to be taken to the High Court. I look on that as very oppressive indeed. The Government will do well to reconsider the whole matter. The machinery of the clause is absurd and ridiculous, as applied to the subject matter of this particular return; it is a case of cracking the smallest possible nut with a Nasmyth hammer. It is out of all proportion to the case. I admit that the Committee is in a position of great difficulty. We are asked whether we prefer the Commissioners or the High Court. Let the Government reconsider the whole machinery. The present proposal is grossly in excess of the requirements of the case: let them substitute for it some simpler and cheaper method of obtaining this information.
§ Mr. BALFOURThe Government must, I think, give way on this point. This machinery. The present proposal is suitable to the clause in its original form. Under the clause in its original shape the owner had to assess himself, and unless he did assess himself the tax could not be levied. I do not argue whether that is right or wrong in the original clause, but in that, it had a justification, because the Exchequer could not get any money unless the man did proceed to value his property, but you now take upon yourselves the duty of valuing his property, and you leave in all the old privileges as if the old state of things were in operation. It may be that the whole property of the man may be very small in amount, and that the amount of property would not be sufficient to prevent him being entitled to an old age pension; and a man who is so poor that he is entitled to an old age pension at the cost of the general taxpayer is to be haled before the High Court and fined £50, and not only that injustice is done him, but he is to be haled before the High Court at a cost of £300. Are the Government going to defend that in the House and in the country? I think I am doing them a very great service in telling them that they are leaving it in our power to expose on 1238 every platform throughout the country the kind of oppressive manner in which they are going to deal with the small owners of land. I believe the Government think that there are no small owners of land, but they will find that they are wrong, and that there are a great many of them. You should not have this kind of penalty for this kind of offence. I think one of the greatest injustices which exists, and for which it is not easy to find a remedy, is that the rich man can get law where the poor man cannot. It is a dreadful thing to say, but everybody knows it is true, though, as I have said, the remedy is not easy to see. I am afraid that whatever you do the poor man would not be able to get a remedy for injustice in some cases, but why bind him to the most expensive tribunal of the country? I know that after I have sat down the right hon. Gentleman must get up and say that in the face of the injustice involved he will remedy the evil now or subsequently, and why he could not do it before I do not know.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEReally the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the whole position. This is a power which has been in the Income Tax Act for over sixty years. Unless a man supplies information upon the basis on which the Commissioners may assess him or exempt him from Income Tax, he is liable to a penalty of £50, and that is a penalty which is not alone applicable to the rich man; it is equally applicable to the poor. They are bound to supply the information. The same arguments exactly were used in the year 1842 in regard to this clause of the Income Tax Act as are now used with reference to the proposed tax. You may say it is applicable to the small man who may not be liable at all. So it is. The Clause has the effect, undoubtedly, of making operative all these notices, and people had to give the information when the Income Tax Commissioners called for it. It is of the first importance that it should be realised by the general public that when these notices go out the information must be supplied, and this is the way which it has been proved by experience to be an effective way. There has not been a single case of oppression in the case of the Income Tax.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONI appeared in the House of Lords the other day where there was a penalty of £20 under the Stamp Acts.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to mention that the Treasury did not demand the penalty; and, secondly, that it has nothing to do with the clause which we are considering. The mere knowledge that there is a clause of this kind has been effective for its purpose, and so it will be here. It is strictly analogous to the case of the Income Tax, and why there should be a distinction I do not know. I offered to accept the suggestion that it should not exceed £50, and it is not my fault that it is not inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI was applying this clause to a case of my own knowledge of a man with 250 tenants. Every block of the property is mortgaged. Some are in Glasgow, some in Liverpool, some in London and some in other places. That man is asked to give some information which he can only get by seeing the deeds, some of which are in safe deposit companies. At the end of 30 days he has incurred penalties of £12,500—£50 in each of these 250 cases.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is wandering too wide. The question is that the words "penalty shall only be recoverable in the High Court" shall be left out.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI have only one sentence to add. The 250 actions would be in the High Court, and what we say is that the penalty is out of all proportion to the offence, having regard to the circumstances of the clause.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI must say that the attitude of Liberalism towards this point is very curious. The question is whether a taxpayer who has committed this trumpery peccadillo is to be dragged to the High Court. We know what that means to a poor man. It is not merely the penalty, but the costs which will make the punishment severe. The proceedings are to be taken under a statute passed in 1842. We are not in 1842 now, and a great deal has happened since that time. The position of the county courts is very different now from what it was then. Even under the Act of 1842 I am not sure that the proceedings were limited to the High Court, for it says that a person may be prosecuted in "Her Majesty's Court." Why do the Government go out of their way now to say that proceedings shall only be taken in the High Court? County courts practically did not exist in 1842, and now the country is full of them. These courts, which are conveniently situated, are highly competent, and the judges might very well be entrusted with the duty of dealing with the cases which may arise. It appears to me it can only be for the purposes of terrorism that it is proposed to take a man to the High Court. I submit that the proposal is reactionary and highly oppressive.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 80.
1241| Division No. 460.] | AYES. | [12.40 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cleland, J. W. | Glover, Thomas |
| Armitage, R. | Clough, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Clynes, J. R. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Grey, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cooper, G. J. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Barnard, E. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Crosfield, A. H. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Crossley, William J. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Harwood, George |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duckworth, Sir James | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Brace, William | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Branch, James | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brooke, Stopford | Elibank, Master of | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Erskine, David C. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Essex, R. W. | Hodge, John |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Esslemont, George Birnie | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Everett, R. Lacey | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Fenwick, Charles | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ferens, T. R. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Ferguson, R. C. Munre | Howard, Hon. John Geoffrey |
| Hudson, Walter | Norman, Sir Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | O'Grady, J. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Summerbell, T. |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Partington, Oswald | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pointer, J. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lambert, George | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lamont, Norman | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Toulmin, George |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Radford, G. H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Raphael, Herbert H. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Maclean, Donald | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richardson, A. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wiles, Thomas |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Rowlands, J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Massie, J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Middlebrook, William | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | |
| Worrell, Philip | Seely, Colonel | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Shackleton, David James | |
| Myer, Horatio | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Colliding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Renton, Leslie |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hill, Sir Clement | Renwick, George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hunt, Rowland | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Keswick, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cave, George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cralk, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Winterton, Earl |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Younger, George |
| Foster, P. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Gordon, J. | Percy, Earl |
§ Further Amendments made to leave out Section (4), and to insert instead thereof the following:—
§ "(4) Any owner of land may, if he thinks fit, furnish to the Commissioners his estimate of the total value or site value or both of the land, and the Commissioners, in making their valuation shall consider any estimate so furnished."
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1242§ Mr. ABEL HENRY SMITHI wish to raise my protest against the inclusion of agricultural land in this valuation, which is made compulsory by this clause. The Debate has been almost wholly confined to gentlemen learned in the law, and I am surprised that no part has been taken in it by hon. Gentlemen opposite representing agricultural constituencies. I believe some bolder spirits of the Liberal Party, led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are saying throughout the country that the 1243 agricultural interest will suffer no damage by the provisions of this Bill, but I think this clause providing for the valuation of every plot of land throughout the country will impose a very heavy burden upon owners of land both great and small. It is absolutely unnecessary that agricultural land should be valued.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question is "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." and the hon. Member seems to be speaking only to a particular Amendment which has been decided.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHI was only complaining and perhaps repeating the argument which was used in connection with some of the Amendments. I think it is perfectly possible that original site value is going to have some value over and above its purely agricultural value. I think that would be a reasonable provision to adopt, and that it will be admitted in all parts of the House that this burden of valuation should not be thrown upon owners of agricultural land throughout the country.
§ Earl WINTERTONI do not think my hon. Friend that has just spoken has in any sense exaggerated the effect which this valuation must have on agricultural land. In the first place, if the estimate the Government give as to the effect of this tax is correct, then valuation is entirely unnecessary, for the very large majority of the agricultural land of the country will not come within the purview of the clause. Therefore all the expenses and trouble to which the owners and the State will be put will be entirely thrown away. I have listened to all the Debates on the question of the valuation of agricultural land, and I have heard nothing from the beginning to the end of the Financial Resolution either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General dealing with the enormous difficulties that will arise if this valuation is to be properly carried out. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever thought of the difficulties which will arise. I can show him cases of land in the South of England, in Surrey, Sussex, and other Southern counties, the value of which it is really impossible to estimate, and which, when estimated, so far as the value is concerned, will be of no assistance or value whatever to the Government. It is not in order to refer to the fact that the Government have 1244 decided to place the whole valuation on the State because they have found the cost would be two millions sterling, but I do not believe any Government in any country which believed the cost would be so much would dare to put such a charge upon any class of property owners. I think the fact that they have decided to put that upon the shoulders of the State shows that the Government in its original proposal had not the least idea of the cost of the valuation. I am perfectly convinced they have now estimated it as far lower than it could possibly be. As far as I am aware, it is perfectly impossible for the land of this country to be valued at about 1s. per £100 value, the amount at which the estimate of the Government works out. We are driven back to the position that this proposal has no real reference to the amount of the duty to be placed on land under this Bill, and that the clause is brought in in order that, at some future time, a much heavier tax, embracing more varieties of land, may be imposed. Over and over again, hon. Members below the Gangway have said that they would not stop at 10 per cent. but would go to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent., and the Government have never denied that that is the object aimed at. The Committee should realise that in passing this clause they will be enabling either the present Government or the real leaders of the Radical Party, who sit below the Gangway, to make proposals in the future which will make private ownership of land impossible, leading inevitably to land nationalisation, and eventually to the restriction of private ownership in all kinds of property.
§ 1 A.M.
§ Mr. PRETYMANHas the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate as to the number of valuations that will be required? The President of the Estate Agents' Institute estimates that the total number of assessments which will be required under this clause is about 11,000,000, and I think that that is probably near the mark. Taking the cost at £2,000,000, that works out at 3s. 8d. apiece. What does that involve? We are told that under this clause 500 Commissioners are to be appointed. I do not want to labour this point, but I want to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand what this estimate means. There are 500 Commissioners to make eleven million valuations in four years. That means that every Commissioner will have to make 1245 22,000 valuations, even assuming that each one of them works independently and without any assistance. That means 5,500 valuations from each Commissioner during each of the four years. Does that seem a possible undertaking? I mention that as an estimate made by a responsible individual having some practice in and knowledge of these matters. I only rise to put this estimate, not as my own but as a professional estimate, before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that he may tell us what his estimate is and how many valuations he thinks each Commissioner will have to make in order to arrive at the result which will enable the taxes to be levied.
§ Mr. JAMES MASON (Windsor)In reviewing the clause as it stands amended, I am still very much at a loss to understand why the valuation of the total value of the land is required, inasmuch as two of the taxes, the Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty, are taxes solely upon the site value, and therefore the total value is not required at all. In the case of the Reversion Duty provided for in Clause 7 there is a total value brought into account, but it is only brought into account at the time the lease determines, and therefore the primary valuation of the total value appears to be absolutely useless for any one of the three taxes. For that reason I am totally at a loss to know why this valuation, which will admittedly be very expensive, is to be imposed, and why it should be doubled, because you are going to make a valuation not only of the total value but of the site value. There is nothing in the Bill which renders the double valuation necessary in each case. It is certainly unnecessary for the purposes of the taxes.
§ Mr. W. PEELI wish to say a word on behalf of the thousands of small holders in the county of Somerset which I represent. I am one of those who think that this particular valuation will fall far more heavily on the owners of land, and especially on small owners, than has been yet stated. I say so for this reason. Of course, we know that the Government have said that the cost of valuation is going to fall upon the State, but after listening to the statements of the Prime Minister on that point it is absolutely clear that the number of the Commissioners, and also the payment for their services, is very inadequate. What is going to happen? These valuers will be 1246 first set to work on the kind of valuation that is going to bring grist to the mill of the State. They will be employed principally in the towns and on the uncovered land on estates from which the State is going to get money. They will be engaged a very long time on that valuation. As a result the valuation of agricultural land will be very perfunctorily and carelessly done. Consequently a great deal of labour will be thrown on the owners which ought to be done by the Government valuers. The owners will have to go into the matter with great labour. The immense varieties there are in these lands compared with the varieties in town lands will make it a very difficult and delicate operation. These people will have to go through a very careful and elaborate valuation, and at the end they will find it is all of no use at all, and that no tax is to be levied. What idea of the intentions of the Government will these gentlemen have? They will say, "We would submit to it if we knew something is coming out of it, but here is a Government who for no reason that we can see compels us to make this valuation, although the tax will not affect us." They will look upon this Government with indignation for putting men through laborious scientific work which is of no use at all. Perhaps it will be suggested to them that the Government would not make them go through this extraordinary labour for nothing, and that if this was not done for the purposes of these taxes it might be done for some other purpose. In that case they will feel that they cannot accept the perfunctory valuation of the Government, and will feel bound to go into the valuation of their land in minuteness and scrutiny. Therefore, in two ways you will cast upon these people, simply by putting valuation upon them, a double labour, which otherwise it would have been unnecessary for them to go through. Is it right that all these small holders, of whom there are thousands in Somerset, should have put upon them this troublesome business for the purposes of a tax which perhaps for hundreds of years may never be payable by them?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDUnder this clause all the land in the country, without option, is to be valued. Have the Government thought what that means? Not only the land which is to be subject to the taxes but all the land which is only to be subject to the taxes in very remote contingencies, and in addition to that a very large quantity of land which 1247 is never going to be subject to the taxes at all. For instance, roads, streets, churches, town halls, all municipal property, all property belonging to the Corporation of the City of London, all property belonging to the City of Liverpool, and its public buildings, will not be subject to the tax. What I say is this. Is it necessary to inflict upon 99 out of 100 different pieces of property all the interference, all the annoyance, and all the expense of these valuations where those properties are not going to be taxed? There is only about one property in 100 that is going to be taxed, and yet all the rest—large portions of which, as I say, can never be taxed at all—are going to be valued as soon as possible after the passing of the Act. I think this state of things is absurd, and I am forced to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really never properly understood the clause.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to what was said by the Prime Minister the other day about the cost of this valuation. I have been refreshing my memory of the passage to which I wish to refer, and I must confess that I am unable, after reading it very carefully, to grasp what the Prime Minister really meant. I will quote a few extracts from the Official REPORT. The Prime Minister said: "Let me just recapitulate one or two points. In the first place, what I may call the capital charge, or, to speak more accurately, the non-recurrent charge in regard to the initial cost will fall only in the first and second years, and will never reappear, and that is the sum of £300,000 to which I referred earlier in my observations." Then comes the passage which I cannot understand. The Prime Minister then went on to say:—
In the second place, about two-thirds, roughly speaking, of the total cost of valuation, which I put at £2,000,000, will also be non-recurrent.That, I understand, to mean that about £1,300,000 out of the £2,000,000 will be non-recurrent, and if that is so it would leave about £700,000 as the current expenditure. The Prime Minister continued as follows:—That is to say, when the original valuation, extending over three or four years, as the case may be, is brought to an end, we shall be able hereafter, for the purposes of valuation on the occasions upon which the various duties fall to be charged, to content ourselves with the expenditure of about £150,000 a year.1248 Of course, £150,000 is not one-third, or anything like roughly one-third, of £2,000,000, and after puzzling over this for some time I am unable to attach any meaning to the Prime Minister's 'words. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explan whether any words have been dropped out of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I think is possible, or, if not, perhaps he will tell the Committee what is the normal cost of the valuation proposals under this Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the misunderstanding has arisen entirely from the fact that my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Chamberlain) has multiplied the £150,000, which is non-recurrent, by four. That makes £600,000, and if the right hon. Gentleman takes that out of £2,000,000, it leaves, of course, £1,400,000. The expenditure will be more or less in the first two years, and will not recur afterwards. It is not the case at all that £600,000 is to be taken as an annual charge. The permanent charge will be £150,000, and there will be something in addition to that to be allowed for the Referees. You cannot estimate that additional amount at the present moment, because you never can tell how many cases will go to the Referees. It will not, however, be a very heavy charge. The permanent charge, as I say, will be about £150,000, and all the rest will be a charge necessary in the preliminary stages in order to complete the valuation.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think I see. I certainly did not multiply by four, though perhaps one of my hon. Friends may have done. I assume what the right hon. Gentleman means is that he ought to have divided by four.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf it was not the right hon. Gentleman who made the mistake it was somebody else on that side. There was certainly a mistake about it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe £2,000,000 is four years' expenditure. What I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean is that it is not the £150,000 which should be multiplied by four, but the £2,000,000 which should be divided by four. If you divide the £2,000,000 of initial expenditure, which is spread over four years, by four, then you get £500,000. One-third of that may be roughly said to be £150,000, and that is the way the figure is arrived at. I think that is saying something different from what the Prime Minister appeared to say, 1249 though I quite see how that may have been what he meant. The Government therefore put the normal cost of valuation at £150,000, plus whatever may be required for Referees, and I imagine that a good deal will be needed for Referees.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe expenses of the Referees during the first year may come to a considerable sum of money, but as a permanent charge we do not estimate that the expenditure under this head will amount to much, because the valuation will be fixed, and the Referees will only come in occasionally when there is a dispute.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINEvery time you assess a new piece of land for Undeveloped Land Duty, every time you assess any land on transfer by any method for Increment Duty, and I suppose also whenever there is an assessment for Reversion Duty, the Referees may and very probably will have to be called in. No doubt a great deal will depend on how the Commissioners do their work, and something will also depend on what the Government intend to do in regard to a matter we have not yet discussed, namely, in the way of giving information to the public as to the principles on which the Commissioners or the Referees are to proceed, and the results to which those principles are to lead. But in any case, additional to the £150,000, there will be something for the Referees, and I think it will be a not inconsiderable sum. Besides that you have to take the value of the £2,000,000 which you have laid out as
§ capital expenditure, and you may well call that £60,000, so that you have a sum of something like a quarter of a million a year in order to make these valuations, apart from the cost of legal proceedings, which may or may not be a considerable proportion of what is collected by the Government.
§ Earl WINTERTONEarlier in the day the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said he had arrived at an estimate. He believed the proportion of the cost of valuation to value would work out at 1s. per £100, and, as far as I know, that estimate has never been contradicted by the Government. If that estimate is a correct one I can only say that this clause is rendered absurd on the face of it. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts that estimate, and if not I should be glad to hear what is his estimate of the relation of the cost of valuation to value under this clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAll I can say is that the Prime Minister dealt very fully in his reply with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). I do not think that I can, by way of answer to the noble Lord, usefully add anything to what my right hon. Friend said on the point.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 75.
1251| Division No. 461.] | AYES. | [1.20 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Flennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cleland, J. W. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Armitage, R. | Clough, William | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Glover, Thomas |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cooper, G. J. | Hancock, J. G. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crosfield, A. H. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Crossley, William J. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Davis, Timothy (Fulham) | Harwood, George |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Brace, William | Duckworth, Sir James | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Branch, James | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Elibank, Master of | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Erskine, David C | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Essex, R. W. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hodge, John |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Evans, Sir S. T. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Everett, R. Lacey | Hooper, A. G. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Fenwick, Charles | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Ferens, T. R. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Grady, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hudson, Walter | Partington, Oswald | Summerbell, T. |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk Eye) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jenkins, J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pointer, J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Jowett, F. W. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lambert, George | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Tomkinson, James |
| Lamont, Norman | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Toulmin, George |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Radford, G. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Raphael, Herbert H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Richardson, A. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Whitehead, Rowland |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wiles, Thomas |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Rowlands, J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Middlebrook, William | Scarisbrick Sir T. T. L. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Morrell, Philip | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Seely, Colonel | |
| Myer, Horatio | Shackleton, David James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley, W. W. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Renton, Leslie |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Joynson-Hicks, William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Keswick, William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith,'Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Foster, P. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl | |
| Gordon, J. | Pretyman, E. G. |
§ Mr. W. PEELI beg leave to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will readily accede to my Motion, and I think it is unnecessary for me to use any argument except to ask him to direct his eyes to the clock, the hands of which are pointing at half-past one. I think he will feel that it is utterly impossible in this hot weather to start entirely new business at this hour. It is perfectly true that this House, forced by the 1252 Government, has set some very bad precedents in starting new business at unearthly hours of the morning. I can recall one or two instances on this Bill when new clauses have been started at four o'clock, and I think on one occasion at half-past four o'clock in the morning. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that although there may have been precedents for this extraordinary course it would be an extremely bad thing if this House were to get into the habit of starting fresh business and 1253 controversial clauses at so late an hour, and I hope he will by accepting this Motion put an end to this bad habit. I believe he will admit also that there have been no speeches which can by the widest stretch of the imagination be described as obstructive. I have heard a good many Bills thoroughly discussed in Committee of this House, but I can say quite frankly that I do not think I have ever heard such close, interesting, and valuable discussions as I have listened to on this Bill, or with such an extraordinary absence of obstructive speeches. Indeed, obstructive speeches have not been necessary where there has been so much important matter and new principles to occupy attention. Not only that, but I do not suppose that any Opposition has ever tried before to do so much to recast the whole of a Government measure, or in which the Minister in charge of the Bill has made so many changes and brought in so many fresh clauses at very short notice, or without any notice at all.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not quite see how this is relevant to the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. PEELI think it is relevant in this way: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were faced with very obstructive opposition and the wasting of time in discussing unnecessary matter, I conceive it might be necessary to sit and to start new business very late so as to force matters through the House; but as that has not been the case, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Motion. Clauses 17 and 18 relate to the ascertainment of the original total and the original site value of land, and to the periodical valuation of undeveloped land. Both clauses involve not mere questions of machinery, but very important questions which certainly ought to be dealt with when we are fresh. I do urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the hour, and whether it is consistent with the dignity of this House to embark on new matter of a controversial character at nearly two o'clock in the morning.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI cannot possibly accede to the proposal, and I think the hon. Member must really have anticipated the reply I am bound to give. I do not think it is necessary for me to consider whether there is any obstruction or not. All I have to say is that on Clause 16 there was really one important point to consider, and as to the rest they were 1254 all Amendments moved by the Government in the direction of amending the Bill according to the expressed wish of the Opposition. With regard to Clause 17, there is no point of principle at all; it is purely machinery. All the Amendments of which I have given notice largely embrace Amendments put down by the Opposition, and to meet their criticisms. There is one point of substance on Clause 18, and the other two or three clauses are purely machinery, so that I really think we might get on with them.
§ Mr. BALFOURI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably right in saying that when my hon. Friend moved his Motion he had very little hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to it. Certainly I did not much hope, because I judge the future by the past, and I know that appeals of this kind which have been made from time to time in the course of this Bill have invariably met with the same perfectly civil but decided reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he thinks it proper to go on with the discussion at advanced hours of the morning. I am not at this moment going to discuss the question, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has put on one side, whether there has or has not been any obstructive discussion on this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I, from different points of view, have seen a great deal of obstruction in the course of our Parliamentary career, and if he and I were to begin comparing reminiscences I dare say some very curious results would follow.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI used to get very short shrift.
§ Mr. BALFOURDoes the right hon. Gentleman really forget the incessant discussions on the Education Bill of 1902? Although in that Bill an important central principle was involved it did not contain the enormous number of separate details such as are involved in this Bill. Everybody who has had experience of this House will agree that prolonged sittings of the character we are now undergoing are almost necessary for a Government which has got to pass legislation. No Government, I imagine, likes it, but no Government would deliberately deprive itself of the occasional use of the machinery which this Government are at present employing. But the point is that no Government has ever used this machinery during the last 1255 50 years at the rate the present Government is using it. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he has met our objection to discussing these clauses between 12 and 3.45 in the morning by saying these clauses are machinery clauses; but it very often happens that it is just such clauses that require very serious consideration. The great questions and matters of principle have often been threshed out on second reading. As in the case of the Bill of 1902, the great principle lies in a comparatively narrow compass, and the details are left to be dealt with in Committee after the principle has been admitted; and when you come in Committee to the machinery clauses, contrary to the view put forward by the Government, you come to the real manner in which the Bill is going to affect the persons whom it touches—in this case the taxpayers of the country. I am quite certain that I should never have dreamed of taking the action which the Government has taken to-night in regard to some Amendments that have been moved, and I shall never understand why the Government have kept us hour after hour refusing Amendments which might have been accepted. The fact is the Government did choose to occupy our time in the earlier part of the sitting in resisting perfectly obvious and perfectly just Amendments.
The Government are soon coming to other clauses when questions other than those of a technical character affecting machinery will be raised, and which are of actual substance and are of importance to the taxpayers. It is, I maintain, impossible for this Committee to go on night after night doing the work. It is perhaps not pertinent for me to say that the officers of the House, and particularly the Chairman, must find it difficult to carry out their tasks; but I have had experience in knowing that the officials who aid the Government and Ministers cannot do their duty properly if they are expected to work here 13 or 14 hours, in addition to the work they do outside the House. If the machinery is to work at pressure it is desirable that it should work well. To make all-night sittings an ordinary method of procedure is perfectly monstrous. It is bad for the Members, it is bad for the officials, and it is bad for the Bill under consideration. It cannot be said outside this House that the points of the Bill have been thoroughly threshed out. Nobody in his senses will say that a discussion between twelve and six o'clock in the morning is an adequate discussion, or in any sense a substitute for 1256 discussion which takes place between four in the afternoon and eleven o'clock at night. They are long hours in the latter case, and the whole ground upon which the ministry of the day insisted upon the change of hours of sitting was that discussion after eleven o'clock at night was bad. I think, perhaps, eleven o'clock was too early an hour for terminating discussion; but still we have got accustomed to it, and we have taken it as a normal thing to adjourn soon after that hour. A discussion as important as that which took place last night everybody accepted as carried on under proper limitation. Anything beyond the time that discussion went should be exceptional—should be made to meet a particular crisis; but the present Government in dealing with this Bill are making these late sittings part of the regular machinery for carrying on discussion, and they cannot do so without injuring the health of many of those who stay here to support or to oppose the Government, as the case may be, and those who are here to advise the Government and the House. I, therefore, earnestly support my hon. Friend in the Amendment he has moved, and if he carries it to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILOn a point of order, Mr. Emmott. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have repeatedly accused hon. Members on these Benches of "obstruction," and I desire to ask for your ruling whether or not that is a disorderly expression?
§ The CHAIRMANThe last ruling on the point was not given by me, but the Speaker gave one when he said he had heard the charge of obstruction made, and he had known it done.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI desire to put a point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to Clause 25. He has said that we should not only get through Clause 18, but two or three other clauses, and that will bring us to Clause 25 to-morrow. Clause 25 deals with the exemption of land held for public or charitable purposes. It is well known that the Government intend to recast that Clause, but their Amendments are not on the Paper, and I do submit that it would be really surpassing the Government's record in the matter if we could only see those Amendments on the Paper to-morrow, when we may have to discuss them straight away. I think this Motion that we should adjourn the Debate now is really relevant, so that we may have 1257 time to consider the Amendments of the Government to Clause 25 and have them upon the Paper before we come to them. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the feelings conveyed to him of those who feel strongly on this point, and he must see that it will be grossly improper to ask the Committee to come to a decision on Amendments which have only been within the purview of the Members a few hours. He ought not to press this machinery unduly to-night.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAMEveryone of the supporters of the Government on these benches is most anxious to get this Bill through, and we cannot get it through without extra sittings unless the House sits long hours. When the Opposition were in power they on one occasion not only sat all night but right through the next day as well, so that we ran into the next sitting. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] That was on the Coal Tax. On one occasion the House sat for 25 hours. But that is not the point. What I want to put to the Opposition is that it is not merely what they have done in the past, but what I think they will do again when they have the opportunity.
§ Mr. BALFOURAs I pointed out, every Government must have power to increase the hours of sitting; but what I complain of is the persistent use of increased hours.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI quite understand. What I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind in getting the Bill through this House is that the Government's supporters want to get the Bill through, and that they are prepared to sit up to-night.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member has detected what he thinks to be a precedent. His memory has unfortunately misled him. He says that the occasion on which we sat till half-past four in the second day was the occasion in which the Coal Tax was imposed. He is mistaken.
§ Mr. MARKHAMIt was a Budget resolution.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt was not even a Budget resolution. It was not when the Coal Tax was imposed, but two or three years afterwards. There was nothing in that Budget about the Coal Tax, but there was a new clause in the name of an hon. Member to repeal the Coal Tax which was an existing tax. Nobody would have guessed that these were the circumstances to which the hon. Member (Mr. Markham) 1258 referred. On that occasion we had a very prolonged and highly obstructive discussion, lasting over many days, on taxes which were, with one trifling exception, well known and familiar to the Committee, and all of which had been in force for some years, most of them for many years. That was the occasion on which, in order to wind up the Committee stage of the Budget and these prolonged obstructive tactics, we were kept sitting by the Opposition of the day till half-past four the next afternoon. That was a totally different state of things from that in which we are now. That was an isolated case. It was a step taken to meet a particular emergency, and was far from getting a habit of the House or of the Government of that day. I think it necessary to rectify the account which the lion. Member (Mr. Markham), no doubt under a complete misapprehension of the facts, gave of the incident which then took place.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI rise to make only one observation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose experience of Committee stages in this House is as great or greater than that of any other Member, has told the Committee that in his judgment all-night sittings must be a not infrequent part of our procedure. The Government not only think that, but they think it should be a normal part of their procedure, at any rate on this Bill. [A LIBERAL MEMBER: "No."] That is evident after the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham).
§ Mr. MARKHAMAbnormal discussion.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILEverybody knows that there has been nothing in the nature of abnormal discussion. I think it is for the House to consider seriously whether that is a condition of affairs in which the procedure of this House should be left. It is for the Government to consider it. The confession of the leaders on both sides of the House that all-night sittings are part of our normal, regular and usual procedure is a condemnation of the procedure of this House, and I call upon the Government of the day in the strongest possible way to amend the procedure so that such a ridiculous state of things may be remedied.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 172.
1261| Division No. 462.] | AYES. | [1.55 a. m |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Prctyman, E. G. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gordon, J. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Renton, Leslie |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Brideman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkely George D. |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanier Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Dublin, S.) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Peel and Mr. Mildmay. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Percy, Earl |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fuller, John Michael F. | Morrell, Philip |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Glover, Thomas | Myer, Horatio |
| Armitage, R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hancock, J. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Pointer, J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harwood, George | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Haworth, Arthur A. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Helme, Norval Watson | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Radford, G. H. |
| Brace, William | Henry, Charles S. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Branch, James | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hobart, Sir Robert | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brunner Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richardson, A. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hodge, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Holt, Richard Durning | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hooper, A. G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Channing, Sir Francis Aliston | Horniman, Emslie John | Rowlands, J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hudson, Walter | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cleiand, J. W. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveiand) |
| Clough, William | Jackson, R. S. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jenkins, J. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seely, Colonel |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jowett, F. W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lambert, George | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lehmann, R. C. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lewis, John Herbert | Summerbell, T. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Maclean, Donald | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Elibank, Master of | Macpherson, J. T. | Toulmin, George |
| Erskine, David C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Mallet, Charles E. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Marnham, F. J. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Middlebrook, William | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Wiles, Thomas | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Wilkie, Alexander | Wills, Arthur Walters | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) | Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |